 Okay, so I think if everybody's ready, we'll go ahead and start the meeting. Wonderful. Would you like me to take roll? So I'd like to call the 11th, 2022 meeting of the Santa Rosa Planning Commission to order. And before we start, I'd like to read the following statement. Due to the provisions of the governor's executive orders and dash 25 dash 20 and and dash 29 dash 20. Which suspend certain requirements of the Brown act and the order of the health officer of the county of Sonoma. To shelter in place to minimize the spread of COVID-19 the planning commissioners will be conducting today's meeting in a virtual setting using zoom webinar commissioners and staff are participating from remote locations and are practicing appropriate social distancing. Members of the public may view and listen to the meeting as noted on the city's website and as noted on the agenda for today's meeting. Members of the public who wish to speak during item. Three the public comment portion, or during our public hearing items tonight will be able to do so by raising their hand and will be given the ability to address the commission. So with that, I'd like to call if the recording secretary could call for the role please. Thank you. Mr. Carter. Here. Mr. Six Cisco. Here. Mr. Degen. Here. Mr Hoelton. Commissioner Ocroppie. Here. Vice chair Peterson. Here. Chair Weeks. Here. Not the record reflect that all members of the Commissioner present. Thank you. Item two is approval of minutes. We have the July 14th, 2022 minutes in the packet. Are there any changes, corrections, additions? Okay. So seeing none, those will stand as submitted and we'll move on to item three, public comments. So I will now open the public comment for any item not included in this meeting's agenda. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raise hand button. If you are dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. And each speaker has three minutes. Accountant time will appear for the convenience of the speaker and the viewers, and please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so. And at the end of the three minutes, your microphone will be muted. So with that, we'll see if we have any. So once again, this public comment period is for items not on the agenda tonight. We do have a caller, caller LP. You've been given permission to speak if you would let us know if you're able to see the timer and introduce yourself if you so choose. Okay, I'm speaking. Are you hearing me? We are, thank you. Okay. Well, now that's all I wanted to find out. How do I get on the picture? You don't. Okay. Here is an attendee, not a panelist via Zoom, so. Okay, so I'll just wait for my audience. You can't hear me. Okay. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So are there any other comments by the public for items not on the agenda? We have no additional, oh, I apologize. Alice still had his hand raised, but we have no additional hands raised at this time. Okay. Mr. Petrie, could you please take your hand down and then put it back up during the public? Thank you. Thank you so much. So, okay, so with that, I'll go ahead and it was the public comment period and take it on to item four, planning commissioners reports. And item 4.1 is a statement of purpose. Planning commission. Mr. Cousin. The plan's ordinances and policies relating to land use matters, assisting in writing and implementing the general plan and area plans, holding public hearings and acting on proposed changes to the zoning code, zoning map, general plan, tentative subdivision maps and undertaking special planning studies as needed. So with that, we'll move on to 4.2. Are there any committee reports from the subdivision or waterways advisory committee? Okay. Seeing none. 4.3 commissioner reports. Are there reports by any of my fellow commissioners? Okay. Seeing none. We'll move on to department report. Ms. Hartman. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Excellent. Just a quick update on a couple of fun activities happening in planning and economic development. First, I'd like to say that we are essentially staffed up, which is phenomenal. Yeah, so we have a couple of positions to backfill because we did have some internal promotions, but for the most part, our positions are filled and people are coming online every week. There's a new member and it's lots of great energy in the office. Congratulations to the team that has done a phenomenal job recruiting for our department. Other news is that we are embarking on a cost of services and fee update process. Now, this won't happen in short order. It does take at least nine months to process an effort like this. We're gonna evaluate our cost of service for development services and then evaluate the appropriate fees to and even just how you pay fees and what the fees would be. So that process is just getting started. Our first step will be to ask the community what they think. So we are developing a community survey. Once that's ready and out, I will put that announcement out and we'll go out in our public communications and I'll make sure that you have access to that. So we can get the word out. I'm filling out that survey. That's gonna be our first step is ask the public. Secondly, we're also asking, we're doing a developer round table series through the city manager's office. So we are asking questions of our development community, our affordable housing developers, our downtown developers and just general market housing developers. And we are looking at housing developers in particular. And so we're just starting that series. We have met with the affordable group and we'll be meeting with the downtown developing group next week and then a couple of weeks later we'll be opening it up to the general market, collecting some feedback. What are the issues? What are the opportunities? What do they want us to think about as we go into the next stage of strategizing for development services for the city? What else? The city council adopted their city council goal work plan on Tuesday. So if you want to find what that is, that's it was on their consent calendar for August 9th. And it was the city council goals work plan. So with that, you'll see the council's six goals. And in those goals, we have a work plan that shows how staff will help get us there. And so that's online now. And then lastly, we have been working really hard on our housing related dashboards and reports. So by the end of this month, it's August. So by the end of August, we should have launched what we call pending development report. This will be planning entitlements, not just the data around it, but also a map showing where those planning efforts are. Those, these are projects that aren't under construction, but these are projects that have either are in process for planning entitlements, like the ones that are before you tonight, or have been approved, but not yet constructed. And then we're also going to be launching what we call the housing dashboard and the downtown housing dashboard. So one is citywide and is kind of built off of our like our rebuild tracker that's been very successful. We'll be launching that work. And then we'll also be looking at a sort of a new way to project information for just our downtown. So we're putting these out, but there will be a city council staff briefing on August 23rd. So it's one of the early items in the council's agenda under staff briefings. And if you're interested in where we're headed with our dashboards, that would be a great opportunity to take a peek. We'll walk through what those look like and then we're going to launch those to the public. And we're accepting feedback openly because we want to make sure the information is of interest, but also very useful and in a way that makes sense to a variety, all the variety of people that tap into this information. And that's it. That's my report. Thank you. Is that the dashboard that you showed the housing ad hoc committee? Yes. Yeah, I heard good feedback on that. So I'm anxious to actually see it. Good, thank you for the teaser. Sure. Get those ratings up. Okay. So is that Ms. Hartman? Okay, thank you. So with that, we'll move on to statement of abstentions. I will be abstaining from item 8.3 today as I was chair of the subdivision committee when that project was heard and reviewed. So were there any, and Vice Chair Peterson will take the reins when I leave. And are there any other abstentions on the three items today? Okay. Thank you. So we'll go ahead and move. We have no consent items. So we'll go ahead and move to item 8.1, public hearing, carry ranch, parcel A, addendum to mitigated negative declaration, tentative map and conditional use permit. It's assessors parcel number 038-850-026, file numbers PRJ 21-008, MAJ 21-001, and CUP 21-043. This is an ex parte item. So we'll go ahead and start with Commissioner Carter. Oops, you're muted. Okay, there you go. Yeah, I did visit the site and had nothing further to disclose. Thank you. And Commissioner Sisko. I visited the site. I have no new information to disclose. Thank you, Commissioner Duggan. I visited the site and have no new information to disclose. Mr. Holton. I also visited the site. I have nothing further to disclose. Thank you, Commissioner Krepke. I visited the site. I have nothing further to disclose. And Vice Chair Peterson. I have nothing to disclose. And I also visited the site and spoke to a resident in the neighborhood and have nothing further to disclose. So with that, Ms. Murray, you're up. Thank you. As usual, just a quick delay while I get my screen out. There. Am I on presentation mode? Yes. Great. Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair and members of the planning commission. The first item before you this afternoon evening is the Kerry Ranch Parcel A subdivision. This is a proposal to subdivide a 0.65 acre parcel into five individual single-family lots with the plan to construct five single-family residential units. The plan includes two models or four floor plans. Three of the properties will take access from San Miguel Avenue and two will take access from the new Versaro Street. Let's see. So the required entitlements are an addendum to the Kerry Ranch one, two and three mitigated negative declaration. There are no new mitigation measures identified. A minor conditional use permit which was elevated to the planning commission. So it would track with the tentative map and then of course the tentative map to subdivide the parcel. Lot sizes will range from about 4,300 square feet to a little over 8,000 square feet. The project has been designed to meet all of its parking requirements with off street or onsite parking. They have requested through the conditional use permit process some modifications to the typical setbacks for small lot conditional use permits on small lot subdivisions. And that includes a 10 foot rear yard setback lots, one, two, three and five. Not sure what happened with my typos there. Let's see. And those have kind of an L shaped floor plan or footprint and that maximizes allowing that 10 foot setback maximizes the private open space area. So and then a 13 foot private open space dimension on lot four. So lot four is this parcel and they've just got the 13 feet back here in the private open space area and a much greater than 15 foot distance here. And then of course on the other, these three, there's the private open space areas. And here. Yeah, I think that stopped for that slide. Okay. By approving this project, it'll give us five market rate units. And that says moderate on the slide. My apologies, that's a mistake that I usually catch myself making. It's above moderate. No, that's right. Market rate five and it's 0.2% of the required renown numbers. Hi, here's kind of an older area of the site. This is the Kerry Ranch one, which I'm gonna talk a little bit more about as I get further into my presentation, but I'm gonna touch on it now. Kerry Ranch one was approved, gosh, back in 2007, I believe, through a series of extensions and whatnot. It's the map finally recorded in 2020, I believe, and they are now under construction. I actually drove out there today. The street is paved, although it's not open to the public yet, all these homes are under construction. And this site, of course, is fenced off and still vacant. This site on the Kerry Ranch one parcel map was identified as parcel A, hence the name of the project. Here's an aerial view just to give you some idea that it's in an area that is just predominantly developed with very similar, well, similar single family residential uses, not necessarily single family residential homes that look the same. It was quite interesting to drive through there. It always is to see more homes being built after the fires and whatnot and seeing so many different types of architecture out there. So site history. I'm gonna talk a little bit about what's been going on. We've received a lot of correspondence and about Kerry Ranch one and Kerry Ranch parcel A. So I'd like to say that just for a kickoff, Kerry Ranch one was a project that was approved. It's gone through several time extensions, automatic extensions by the state, automatic extensions by the city and planning commission approved extensions. And it's been recorded. It's now under construction. During those planning commission hearings, when during the hearing for the time extensions, the first two time extensions, some parcel A was designated originally as a detention basin for stormwater treatment back in 2007. As those extensions came forward and as the water board changed their BMPs, their best management practices, the more current BMPs require onsite treatment of stormwater, meaning not a one stormwater base or one site being designated to treat all the runoff for the entire subdivision. So through the extension process, the project was reconditioned in compliance with current stormwater treatment standards. So with that, so going back to that original meeting in October 11th back in 2007 with the planning commission, the Kerry Ranch one project was approved, that project was appealed and went to the city council and on December 4th, a couple months later, the council upheld the planning commission's project approval. So then back in September of 2020, the Kerry Ranch one map, the final map was recorded. And as I said earlier, it's currently under construction. So now we're gonna move forward to Kerry Ranch parcel A which is the project that is before you all this afternoon. Not a lot of history here on July 1st, back in 2019, a neighborhood meeting was held and on April 28th, 2021, the project applications were submitted and here we are today before you. So the general plan land use designation in this area is low density residential and it just seems to stretch on forever here. This is low density residential that cross hatching is also open space. So it's kind of, we know that usually indicates that we're aware that there are some wetlands out there. So it still has the same density development allowance over there. The zoning for this site and most of the surrounding community is R16 which is the standard implementing zoning district for low density residential and the yellow star in the middle shows you for the project site. So here's some conceptual architecture and I'm thinking in the eyes of the contractor, this is probably, this is the architecture. And the reason I say conceptual is because no architecture is being approved as part of this meeting, only setbacks and I'm gonna say some minor changes to the standard development standards. Minor or major conditional use permits, all conditional use permits are required to make six findings, what you're shown on the screen here and has demonstrated in the resolution those findings have been made or staff has determined that they have been made and I hope you all agree with me. The last one, California Environmental Quality Act, the project was found in compliance based on the adoption or approval of the mitigated negative decoration for Cary Ranch 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, and 3. And then an addendum that was prepared by Jean Kupolchuk which is the first resolution for you in accordance with CEQA guidelines that was prepared. So the addendum concludes that new information or regulations applied to the proposed project show no new or severe environmental effects that weren't previously addressed. So the issues that we came up with because parcel A is a lettered parcel, the challenge was because you cannot develop on a lettered parcel, the challenge was how do we get that parcel A title off of the map? And we considered a few options and after collaboration with a collaboration or consultation, I'll say with the city manager, the city attorney's office, it was determined that the reversion to acreage wasn't necessary, a map modification wasn't necessary, but that we could accomplish this like we do easements or public right away, we can accomplish that through the map, the tentative map. So the original development plan that was submitted was shy one parking space. They have since added the additional parking space and they meet their parking requirements as shown in the previous exhibit of the development plan. I'm gonna say almost all since this, this has changed a little bit since I did the slide, almost all of the public comments that we've received are really related to carry ranch one, the other subdivision, the neighboring subdivision and not so much with this one. And I already talked a little bit about that stormwater management, but the other thing that has come up is parking related to this one. And we've received a request from the neighbors that we add additional street parking along San Miguel. And we have Nancy Adams on the meeting tonight and she will, if you have any questions about that, we will not be adding more parking there. It's a designated bicycle lane. And I'm gonna let Nancy respond to any questions that you may have about that when the time comes. All noticing for the public hearing has been done in compliance with the zoning code. And with that, it's recommended by the Planning and Economic Development Department that the Planning Commission approved the carry ranch parcel A subdivision by approving three resolutions. The addendum to the previously approved carry ranch one, two, and three mitigated negative decoration, a conditional use permit for a small lot subdivision and a tentative map to subdivide an approximately 0.35 acre parcel into five residential lots. And in case there's anybody out there that's calling in that cannot see the screen, my name is Susie Murray. You have any questions, you're welcome to give me a call at 707-543-4348 or you can email me at smurry at srcity.org. And I'll say, if you want a quick response, call me. I've got way too many emails. So with that, I will end my presentation and if I can answer any questions, I'm happy to. Thank you. I know the applicant would like to make a presentation as well. Okay, thanks, Ms. Murray. Any questions of Ms. Murray before we hear from the applicant, Commissioner Duggan? Yeah, just one quick one on the lot four with the reduced setback dimension, they still have, do they still comply with the required minimum square footage for open space? Yes. Okay. Yes, yeah, the other dimension is much longer. So they have their 400 plus square feet, but it's 13 by whatever the lot width is. And I think I don't know exactly what that is, but it's greater than 400 square feet. Okay, thank you. Any other questions of Ms. Murray? Okay, so then if the applicant wants to raise their hand, so that we can hear them. The applicant has been given permission to speak. Great, thank you. Go ahead, please. Yes, thank you, Chair Weeks and members of the Planning Commission. I have a PowerPoint. How do I, can I share that? I'm gonna share that right now. Hold on one sec. I was just having a little bit of a problem. Okay, go ahead and tell me when to advance, but I'm hoping everybody can see it now. We can't. Oh, you can't? No. Oh, all right, hold on. Now we can. Yay. Go ahead. Okay, do you wanna, Ms. Kapolchuk, do you wanna start? Yes, Chair Weeks and members of the Planning Commission, Jean Kapolchuk, 1500 Manzanita Avenue, Santa Rosa, Lanyu's Consultant for the Kerry Ranch Parcelay Subdivision. Also with me this evening is the project applicant, Dan Morgan, and the project engineer, Andy Bordessa. After my presentation, Dan would like to address the commissioner. The commissioner, sorry. Next slide, please. As reported by staff and seen in the slide, Parcelay was once a storm water treatment parcel for the 25 lot Kerry Ranch One Subdivision. As a result of changes in the regional water quality control board storm water treatment design standards, the applicant elected to modify the subdivision storm water treatment design to a per lot design, which made Parcelay available for development. Next slide, please. The subdivision Parcelay into a five lot detached single family small lot subdivision is consistent with the property zoning and general plan designation. All of the design standards for small lot subdivision have been met excepting the rear yard setback on four of the lots in a two foot dimension reduction of the open space area on one of the lots. The square footages of the open space area on all lots exceed the required small lot design standards. And commissioner Duggan, the square footage of Parcel four is 650 square feet in excess of the 400 square feet required. Next slide, please. The applicant was aware that this project is an infill development and a modification to the original Kerry Ranch subdivision. Therefore the project objectives were to ensure quality design and compatibility. Next slide, please. After the neighborhood meeting on the project, the applicant made modifications to the project, adjusting unit placements and making all units single story and enhancing the project's architecture. The next two slides will show the front elevations of the architecture. And the next one, please. Next slide. In conclusion, we ask that the commission adopt the addendum to the mitigated negative declaration, approve the conditional use permit for the small lot subdivision and approve the tentative map. And unless there are any questions of me, Dan Borgin, the project applicant would like to speak. Thank you. That concludes my presentation. Thank you, so I see Mr. Morgan has his hand raised. Will it be he or Mr. Bordessa who will be speaking? Am I, anybody hear me? Yes, we can. Good. Can you please say your name for the record? Yes, Chairman Weeks, my name is Dan Morgan. I'm the project applicant. I'd like to thank Susie for her hard work and entire staff. I just wanted to say that the rear yard set back on the L-shaped plan is provides, I've built that a few times in Santa Rosa and it's quite popular, provides a great, a great outdoor open space for the applicants. All right, we're very excited about the project and we're excited to keep it, keep the infill moving in conjunction with the rest of the development and hopefully you'll find it approvable. With that, I'm gonna open up any questions that the commissioners may have of Andy, any technical questions? Are there any questions of the applicant at this time? It doesn't look like there are, so thank you. So with that, I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this item. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raised hand button. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Each speaker has three minutes. A countdown timer is on the screen. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so and your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown time. So. The first caller will be Mr. Al Petri. Mr. Petri, you have been given permission to speak if you would confirm your ability to see the screen and introduce yourself. Can you, Mr. Petri, can you unmute yourself? Mr. Petri, if you would go ahead and you've been given a prompt to unmute yourself, if you would try that. Ms. Cleary, have you given him the prompt to unmute himself? I have. I will try it one more time. Can you, and you can't unmute him from your end, right? Or can you? I can't. I can only ask him to unmute. Okay. I have given multiple prompts at this point. So maybe, oh, now I see Marcia Chevalier has her hand raised. So perhaps we could go to her and then maybe come back to Mr. Petri. Absolutely. And Mr. Petri, you may want to disconnect and perhaps call in. And we can give you permission to speak that way if that works better for you. So with that, Ms. Chevalier. Ms. Chevalier, you have been given permission to speak if you would confirm your ability to see the timer and introduce yourself if you so choose. Can you hear me? Yes. Oh, good. Okay. I'm Marcia Chevalier. I live at 2252 Dancing Pennyway, which is about a block away from the development in question. And I'm also one of the founding members, as is Mr. Petri. I certainly hope he can get on for the Northwest Santa Rosa Neighborhood Association. Our association was created in response to the first neighborhood meeting regarding the proposed development of Cary Ranch 1, 2, and 3. The results of this meeting today would wipe out 15 years of diligent efforts by our association to make sure that our concerns are addressed regarding this development. So please refer to all the documents in your packet that were submitted by my colleague, Al Petri, has gone to a lot of work to put those together, giving the entire history of our neighborhood associations in relation to this property. We therefore have a very strong interest in the outcome of this meeting. One of the primary issues from the beginning was the paving over of the 1.5 acre vernal pool that was located on the property of Cary Ranch 1. This pool was a neighborhood treasure and wildlife for frequent visitors and myriad frogs sang every night in the late winter and early spring. It was a beautiful sight. Before being paved over. When we learned that the developer was required to have a water retention basin at that time, we negotiated with city staff, water board, water agency, and the developer to have the basin moved, first of all, from the corner of Francisco and San Miguel to the area known now as parcel A, which occupied the majority of the vernal pool area and the developer's wetlands consultants designed a man-made wetlands that would both provide on-site water retention for Cary Ranch 1 as well as two and three and address the neighborhood concerns about the ecology and aesthetics of the neighborhood. Parcel A was created and the wetlands retention basin was made a condition of the tentative map. Over the course of the subsequent extensions, those requirements changed, but as we have discovered, and the retention basin is not illegal at this point. I see my time is running out, so I'm just gonna jump to the bottom. At present in our analysis, the man-made wetlands retention basin is still a condition of the tentative map and should be a condition of the final map for Cary Ranch 1. Therefore, we ask the commission for one of the following options. Do they deny the current application and direct the applicant to execute the project according to the original tentative map? The Parcel A is a combination of water retention wetlands. The Bias Wales don't work in our neighborhood and a trip to the neighborhood's west of the Parcel A will let you know why and deny the current application and direct the applicant to work with our association to design a plan for Parcel A that meets the aesthetic and ecological. Thank you. Okay, so next caller, Mr. Petriek, can you? Do you hear me? Yes, we can. Hey, all right. Yes, real quickly, a lot of stuff. The tentative map for this project was approved in 2007. Plus, the project was exempt from the 2017 shift to Biosales, excuse me. There is a problem in the planning commissions dealing with the tentative map. You'll note, you do have before you, do you not, our letter of July 29th? Well, what you need to know is the planning commission needed to open a public hearing to allow us to speak and to allow the presenters of the project as well as the staff to speak. None of that was done. Therefore, what is shown to be resolution number 11998 is in fact incorrect in terms of what is said. And that needs to be addressed by the planning commission. The real issues center around whether the parcel A should be allowed to be developed or not developed. It has a restriction of no residential development. Does that mean, does no mean no or no mean yes? It gets down to that question. Relative to the comment about the bike lanes on San Miguel, the bike lanes would be restricted the last 800 feet on San Miguel going out to Fulton Road. Therefore, the bike lanes should not be placed on San Miguel, but the preference is to put the bike lanes on Francisco. Since this street, Francisco is a much lower volume street and goes all the way out to Fulton Road, but there is a gate that blocks the vehicular traffic. That's, you need to address that and essentially restripe San Miguel. So there is parking adjacent to the San Miguel project that you're now reviewing. That's important to the developer and important to the neighborhood. Please address that. The other issues revolve around exactly should there be what was approved in 2007? Okay, Mr. Your time is up. Thank you. So any other public comment? There are no additional hands raised at this time. Great, thank you. So with that, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. So Ms. Murray, can you address the issue or Ms. Crocker perhaps the problem that Mr. Petry mentioned with the tentative map and the public hearing and then also perhaps Ms. Adams can talk about the bike lanes. I can go ahead and address the public hearing. So as I tried to clarify during my presentation that the initial carry ranch one map had partially identified with a storm drain capture feature for the entire carry ranch one. Since then water board standards for VMTs best management practices for storm drain or storm water infiltration but that's now moved to individual sites. Back in 2020, there were two, I'm sorry, 2018. There were two time extensions that came forward and those time extensions, that was the time where the shift for the storm water treatment went from parcel A to the individual parcels of carry ranch one. That meeting was a public hearing before the planning commission and that's when the shift now, in 2020, there was another time extension and I'm going to say it more or less paraphrased the same conditions just requiring compliance with the water boards or current best management practices which if they've changed, I don't believe they've changed, I'm sure that we've got some civil engineers or some engineering staff that they can talk about that a little bit more, but it still kept that storm water treatment on each individual parcel. So again, just to summarize, it shifted from parcel A to individual parcels at a public hearing for two time extensions back in February of 2018. Thank you. And the question on the bike course and the question on the bike lanes. I'm going to defer to Nancy Adams. I believe I do see her name. So if we can, there she is. Thank you, so Nancy Adams, Transportation and Public Works Department. So just as a matter of policy context, San Miguel is designated in our bike and pet master plan as a class two bike facility. So whenever we have an opportunity to as part of development to meet that requirement, we do. So this frontage would actually tie into existing bike lanes that are start there at Peterson, just west of the project site area. And then there was a question about going further west to Fulton Road where there might not be a right away. And we certainly will have an opportunity to condition any right away needs that we have as part of any future development along San Miguel as we move farther west towards Fulton Road. But as the commissioners know, it's incremental to get these bike lanes in and we just try each opportunity to succeed. So I hope that answers the questions. Thanks. Thank you very much, Ms. Adams. So with that, I'll bring it to back to the commission. Are there any questions before I ask somebody to read the first resolution, Commissioner Duggan? Yeah, I have a follow-up question for Planner Murray. So on the final map that was recorded in September, 2020, is parcel A, is it re-designated or is it just open space or how is it shown on the final map? Just as parcel A. Okay, the storm water feature has been removed. The storm water treatment has been moved to individual parcels. As far as special notes, I can defer to either the applicant team, Andy Borgesa, I'm sure knows he can give you a much clearer answer, but the storm water treatment was shifted on that map that was recorded to individual parcels, but the title parcel A still remained. Okay, all right, thank you. So any other questions or would somebody like to, Commissioner Carter? It's a follow-on to Commissioner Duggan's question. In that final map approval was any indication given of the use of parcel A? And was there any conversation between staff and the developer about how parcel A would be moved now that they've gone to individual storm water treatment? I'm sorry, was there any, I'm sorry, can you repeat that? I'll try it again. When the final map was approval, was there any use indicated for parcel A? I was not at the meeting. So I'll defer actually to, I think Gabe Oskern is on here and I think he probably was at that meeting or Dan Morgan, the applicant. So can we have Mr. Osburn? Good evening, Chair Weeks and members of the Commission Gabe Osburn, Deputy Director of Development Services. In this particular case, the parcel A designation did remain on that map, mainly to be consistent with that tentative map that tentative map was approved with the parcel A. As far as clarifying the purpose of the parcel A, that typically does not go on the map and it didn't in this particular case. The parcel A is really controlled by the city code, which defines what a parcel is and it states that it's for certain uses, but the designation of a parcel A is actually the product of the development and the associated infrastructure. So the commission has the authority to assign a parcel A to a project or not, because that is part of the design. So in this particular case, there is an accompanying public improvement plan that deals with the drainage elements. That public improvement plan was redesigned to account for the bioretention facilities that are placed in the front of the property. The easements associated with that bioretention facility that would have been placed on parcel A were removed from the map, but the parcel A designation still holds. That's therefore the action today, in addition to the changes that were made in that tentative map, we wanted to keep it clear because there were concerns about some of those tentative map pieces. We left the parcel A and the action today can actually remove that parcel A because you're overlaying another map and a map can address the underlying conditions. So by going through a public process, we're determining if it is appropriate to move that parcel A designation. And in this particular case, we have a proposal that shows what it's going to with the proposed subdivision. I hope that answers your question. Any other questions from staff before I ask somebody to read the resolution? Okay, there are three resolutions on this item. And what I'd like to do is to have comments on the whole project if that's appropriate in your minds and then we'll read and vote on each resolution. So will somebody enter the first resolution? Commissioner Duggan, thank you. Move for resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa adopting an addendum to the carry ranch one, two and three mitigated negative declaration, state clearinghouse number 2007092019 for the carry ranch parcel A project located at assessors parcel number 034-850-026 file number PRJ21-008, MAJ21-001 and CUP21-043. And wait for the reading. Thank you. And is there a second? Commissioner Carter, thank you. So with that, that was moved by commissioner Duggan, seconded by commissioner Carter and we'll go ahead and start with commissioner Carter for comments. There's a long history here. And I think Ms. Murray and the rest of the staff have done a pretty good job of sorting it out for us. I think given the fact that the best management technologies have changed and parcel A is no longer needed for the drainage purposes, while it may seem like a significant change to those who negotiated in the first place, it's clearly not needed for the current drainage design. And it makes sense to me that the right thing to do is to subdivide it and get the additional housing units all. I think I can make all of the necessary findings and I'll be supporting the project. Thank you. Commissioner Siscoe. Yeah, I too will be supporting the project and can make all of the findings. When I went back and looked at the documentation that we had as to when the public hearing occurred about that included parcel A, it was during the extension process, it was recognized that the storm rider requirements had changed and the DAC report, it was amended under map item number one indicating that parcel A was released for private use. So it left it open to, you know, whatever happens there. So I'm satisfied that it was properly handled and noticed and dealt with that public hearing. And as far as bike lanes, I mean, we really, that's why we have a bike and pedestrian master plan is to incrementally create these bike paths. So I think that's being done. And I think it's a nice project that's being built with existing housing and soon to be constructed housing around it. So I think it's a fine project and I'll be supporting it and can make all of the findings. Thank you. Commissioner Deggan. I can also make all of the required findings for all three resolutions, the mitigated negative declaration provision and the tentative map and the small lot subdivision use permit. I also went out there today and I saw that there's actually an existing bike lane and to restripe that and put in parking would interrupt the existing bike lane, which I'm not in favor of. So I do not support that. So I'm in support of the project and can you call the findings? Thank you. And Commissioner Holton. I can also make all the required findings to approve the or adopt the mitigated negative declaration. Also the conditional use permit and the change to the map. So yeah, useful support. I'll keep it short this week. Thank you. And excuse me, Commissioner Krapke. Yeah, I'll keep it short too. Everybody else has already addressed my concerns and my thoughts. So I'll just say that I can make all the required findings for all three resolutions. And Vice Chair Peterson. Yes, I think my fellow commissioners have only handled the issues. I think the only thing I can add is when you've got a project with this kind of long tail, a lot changes in 15 years. And I think it's completely understandable that the neighbors and the groups affected by it would have something to say about those changes. That said, I think I can make all the required findings. I think it's an appropriate project and the concerns were ably addressed by staff. Thank you. And I also am in support of the project and can make all the required findings. And so with that, if we could have the vote on this first resolution. Okay. Commissioner Carter. Hi. Commissioner Siscoe. Hi. Commissioner Stuggan. Hi. Commissioner Holton. Hi. Commissioner Krapke. Hi. Vice Chair Peterson. Hi. Chair Weeks. Hi. So that passes with seven eyes. And now we move on to the second resolution. If somebody would like, thank you, Commissioner Deggan. I'll read them all if you'd like. Thanks. Thank you. That's perfect. I'll move a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa, approving the Cary Ranch parcel, Cary Ranch, parcel A tentative map located at assessors parcel number 034-850-026 file number PRJ21-008 and MAJ21-001 and waive for the reading. Thank you. And is there a second? Commissioner Holton, thank you. So that was moved by Commissioner Deggan, seconded by Commissioner Holton. I cannot remember if we need to go back through and redo that we can make all the findings. Thank you, Ms. Crocker, for being at the ready for me. If you wouldn't mind, I would appreciate it. I know some of you did already state that in your first, but just to be clear, if we could on the record for each one separately make the findings, I'd appreciate that, thank you. Thank you. So with that, Commissioner Carter. Yeah, I can make all the findings necessary to approve the tentative map. I believe that's the resolution before us. Thank you. And Commissioner Siscoe. I too can make all of the required findings for the tentative map resolution. Commissioner Deggan. I can make all the findings for the tentative map resolution. Thank you. And Commissioner Holton. I can also make all the required findings for the approval of the tentative map. Thank you. And Commissioner Krepke. I can make all the required findings for the tentative map. Thank you. And Vice Chair Peterson. I can make all the required findings for the tentative map resolution. Thank you. And I also can make all the required findings for the tentative map resolution. So with that, if we could call for the vote. Commissioner Carter. Aye. Mr. Siscoe. Aye. Commissioner Duggan. Aye. Commissioner Holton. Aye. Commissioner Ocrubke. Aye. Vice Chair Peterson. Aye. Chair Weeks. Aye. So that passes with seven ayes. And then Commissioner Duggan, if you don't mind. I will move a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa making findings and determinations and approving a minor conditional use permit for Cary Ranch, parcel A, a five parcel small lot subdivision located at assessors parcel number 034-850-026 file number PRJ21-008, MAJ21-001 and CUP21-043. And wave for the reading. Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Ocrubke, second. So we'll start with Commissioner Carter. Yes, I can make the necessary findings for the minor use permit for the specific property. Thank you. Excuse me, Commissioner Siscoe. I too can make all of the required findings for the minor use permit before us. Commissioner Duggan. I can make all the required findings for the minor conditional use permit. Thank you, Commissioner Holton. I can also make all the required findings for the minor conditional use permit. Commissioner Ocrubke. I can make all the necessary findings for the minor use permit. And Vice Chair Peterson. I can also make all the required findings for the minor use permit. Great, thank you. So can we call for the vote on this one, please? Oh, I'm sorry. And I also can make all the required findings. Thank you. Commissioner Carter. Hi. Commissioner Siscoe. Hi. Commissioner Duggan. Hi. Commissioner Holton. Hi. Commissioner Ocrubke. Hi. Vice Chair Peterson. Hi. Chair Weeks. Hi. So that passes with seven ayes. And I would like to note that this action is final unless an appeal is filed within 10 calendar days of today's action. The time limit will extend to the following business day if the last day falls on a day that the city is closed. For information on how to submit an appeal form, please contact the project planner, which is Susie Murray. So with that, we'll move on to item 8.2. So item 8.2 is a public hearing, recess storage phase two, addendum to mitigated negative declaration variance, bill side development permit and a conditional use permit, 4465 and 4480 stream side drive, PRJ 21-028, ZV 22-001, HDP 2020-006 and CUP 21-094. This is an exparte item. So we'll go ahead and start with Commissioner Carter. I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Thank you. Commissioner Sisko. I visited the site. I have no new information to disclose. Commissioner Deggan. I also visited the site and have no new information to disclose. Commissioner Holton. I have no additional information to disclose. Commissioner Okrepke. I have no information to disclose. Vice Chair Peterson. I have no information to disclose. And I visited the site and have no new information to disclose. So with that, Ms. Murray again. Okay, let me get my, remember to hit the share screen this time. Anyways, hello again. The second item before you this evening is the recess storage phase two project. Whoopsie, let me get you into presentation here. Thank you. There you go. The project site is located at two new parcels, 4465 and 4480 stream side drive. The project proposes to construct three self-storage buildings, one three-story structure adjacent to the Santa Rosa Creek Trail at 4465 stream side drive and two single story buildings adjacent to the existing residential at 4480 stream side drive. You have another addendum to a mitigated negative declaration before you along with a minor conditional use permit, which would normally be approved at the ZA level has been elevated so that they all the permits track together. Hillside development permit and a variance. The project also requires design review, which will be considered by the design review board. Here's an aerial of the site. Whoopsie, no, I didn't. Usually I put stars in there. So this is 4480 and this parcel here is 4465 which I'll get into the project history a little bit, but this parcel here is now developed with a four-story self-storage facility and this road here is paved. For neighborhood context, we have the Santa Rosa Creek Trail that runs along here and kind of bisects the property here and then it exits and joins the street right about here, stream side. And then this is, believe this is duplex duplexes? It may be a mix of single family and duplex. So we have a couple of three-story buildings here and a couple two-story. So here's an aerial view of what's there today. So again, I put some tags on here, 4465. Here's the creek path. Here's the sloped area right in here. Here's the existing residential uses, the fence line and then that smaller parcel at 4480. The general plan land use designation is separated right along the property line for these medium density residential homes and then the commercial uses. So it's retail and business services in the red and that kind of pumpkin-y color, it is medium density residential, which is eight to 18 units per acre. And then of course you have that open space, low density cross-hatched designation down by the creek and across the creek, there's more residential designation. And then of course, I also need to point out to the east is a lot of retail and business services with very similar commercial uses that way in that direction. The zoning, which is at this site is consistent with the general plan land use designation is CG or general commercial. And then again, it's just to the west, it's residential plan development. And then to the east, there is this kind of one-off parcel that's got our R20 on it, but the general plan land use designation there is retail and business services. So we'll wait and see what happens there. Here's the site plan and just again, some stars are at the current footprint and through the design process, the footprint did change a little bit. So these are two single-story structures proposed adjacent to the residential. Part of the reason they proposed single-family residential was by going taller, it would put another larger building, monolithic building, I'll say right next to residential uses. Something to consider as far as compatibility is concerned, they're about 13 and a half feet tall, these buildings. And then there is a significant amount of landscaping that will be planted in this area. I think I've got a landscaping slide coming up. This building over here is constructed again that we're asking for a reduced setback here. This site is kind of, this is a challenging one. It's not a very deep site, but what makes this site a challenge to develop is not only does it have the creek path here, but it also has the sewer trunk line that goes just on this side of the creek path. So it further kind of reduces the developable area of that site. So here's some elevations. This is the three-story side, the elevation that'll be facing the Santa Rosa Creek Trail. There's some existing trees out there, or there's one very significant one over in this area. And then they have a lot of tree mitigation that they have to do for the entire site. And a lot of that will be done here. And the recommendation of the Waterways Advisory Committee, who by the way, supported the project because of other similar uses going down the trail, they appreciated very much the, like the windows, I don't know that these are real windows. I think they may be in a stairwell and then some of them are faux, but they give that, they break up that mousing. And then what they requested and the landscape plans do reflect them now is a mix of deciduous and evergreen native trees. So I think it's predominantly oak trees in this section. We'll let the design review board look at that more closely, but so just food for thought there. This is an elevation as you come in from Highway 12 onto Streamside Drive heading westbound. Okay, this is these two buildings or this is a rendering of these two buildings. And again, they were designed a single story kind of in keeping, not, so you have to put the transition somewhere from residential to commercial. We deal with this a lot around the city where residential uses are adjacent to commercial or industrial or light industrial and general industrial. And really it's designing something that's compatible. So the thought behind the design, the single story here into making a larger footprint was that it would avoid that monolithic building that's elevated so people would be looking at a blank wall. And then again, on the backside of the building, as I mentioned in my previous slide, that there would be a lot of trees to kind of buffer that view. This uses, you know, I'm gonna call it out, there was an approved project previously that included housing. And that housing will, I don't think it ever can be built. This use, this allows the property owner to develop the site and at the same time, it kind of keeps it a real low rise. I mean, alternatively, they can be very respectful of the setbacks and go significantly higher. So giving an idea of, you know, without the housing that's adjacent to them, here's a rendering from the West. These are the proposed buildings here. This is the existing structure. These trees, when they grow up, when you're very close, when you're looking at that from your backyard, those will buffer the view of the larger building as well as the building that's basically, it's not below the fence line, but when you're standing at the fence line, it won't be so apparent. It's no higher really than another residential. And yeah, the roof line probably looks a little bit different because it's commercial. So here's an aerial view of what the constructed building looks like. There is the parking here and here, I was out there today. It was, I have to say, I was kind of surprised. This lot here looks a lot larger on our aerial views than it does in person. So, site history. In August of 2019, the Planning Commission approved the original resource sestorage project. And that involved a mitigated negative declaration, recommendation to pre-zone the parcel with CG zoning district, which was consistent with the existing general plan land use designation. It included a tentative map to divide the larger parcel into three parcels. Hillside development permit, again, to develop on areas that are greater than 10% in slope. And again, a minor conditional use permit, which was elevated to the Planning Commission so the permits could track together and to minimize the number of public meetings. In September and October that year, the City Council approved the rezoning or pre-zoning, I should say, into the CG zoning district. And that in January, the following year, the Design Review Board ran a design review. All of those entitlements were contingent upon the property, obviously being annexed into the city, which did occur after all the approvals. Those terms of this project history, on October 7th, the Design Review Board considered the proposed storage structures on a concept basis. They were generally in favor of the project. They did have some comments and we'll address those comments before the Design Review Board at the meeting before the Design Review Board. And then in November, the next month, we received their minor conditional use permit and design review applications. And after further review, we determined that they required the variance in the Hillside Development Permit. The Hillside Development Permit because the footprint of the proposed building is a little bit larger than the footprint of the approved housing. So that one, we teetered on that and landed on the path of, yeah, the path of more, just being more for sure. So the variance findings, these are, we see so few variance applications and it's really because the variance findings are really difficult to make. And you really have to have a project that warrants them. So I wanna kinda drill down on the first two because those seem to be the two that are the most challenging. The first one, there are special circumstances applicable to the property, like location, shape, size, surroundings, topography and other conditions that deny the property owner, property rights and other privileges. And I actually have the full language which I think I'm gonna go ahead and read just so we have it out there. So there are special circumstances applicable to the property so that the strict application of the zoning code denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts or creates an unnecessary and non-self-created hardship or unreasonable regulation, which makes it obviously impractical to require compliance with the applicable development standards. As I said, the two parcels were created as part of a project from this developer. The goal was to construct housing. That housing can't be constructed because I think we've heard this a lot. It doesn't pencil out. So and I'll let the applicant talk a little bit more about that, but what we have here are two parcels that were created as part of a project that was required to put a street extension connecting Streamside Drive, the looped street into back into Highway 12. Prior to approval of that project, there was a dedication of a well site given to the city. This property was identified as the best and a list of properties analyzed for a well site. We got the well site and we had to squeeze on to this tentative map access to the well site. We also have, I think I mentioned the pathway. We have a very large trunk line that carries sewer water, water that needs treatment from the east side of Santa Rosa over to the plant here. And so, oh, this is, and so that that tentative map process, squeezing all of this stuff and the proposed uses at that point made a very compact map. And I will tell you that after all of the approvals, the challenges went on with getting the map final, but we finally got there. So the things that I would consider as part of the special circumstances that are applicable to, I'm going to separate these out to 4465, which is the property that is adjacent to the creek path is that they have that trunk line and they have that creek path, or yeah, the trunk line and the creek path, which basically cuts off about, I'm going to say 40% of the property and that's an approximate number, 40% of the property leaving it undevelopable, leaving the other 60% which has the slope on it. So they're developing there. If we were to require a 20-foot setback there, it would, I think for, certainly for storage use, which is a permitted use in the general commercial zoning district, it would make it almost, I don't know that they could construct very much, maybe a very narrow building. On the 4480 property, that property measures about 15 to 67 feet in width as it goes from where it's created towards the top, the trailhead, as it moves closer to Highway 12. And of course it tapers down quite a bit to Highway 12. So but the developable area at its widest point is 67 feet. So to require 20-foot setback on the front and the back, it literally knocks that down to 27 feet that it can be developed, or where it can be developed for storage facilities where we have those greater setbacks. So the project was designed requesting that variance in a way that would be more compatible with the existing residential uses. The alternative that was considered was going a little bit taller up to three stories. And I don't, yeah, I mean, that's an alternative, but this was more compatible with the surrounding uses. So the next finding that's a challenging one is a non-self-created hardship peculiar to the subject property does exist by reason of the conditions and that these conditions are not common to all or most of the properties in the immediate area, which are also within the identical zoning district. In this context, personal, family, or financial difficulties, loss of perspective profits, and existing zoning violations or legal non-conforming uses or structures existing on neighboring properties shall not be deemed hardships justifying a variance. So I will say without hesitation that there have been some financial hardships associated with not being able to construct the residential and now coming in with a new proposal. However, those are not the reasons they're justifying the variance. The variance for this, again, it's very similar to the site conditions that are listed that I just talked about for the first variance. The properties, they're oddly shaped because of a variety of reasons because of the improvements given to the city or because of easements given to the city as part of the previous project making these two sites very, very difficult to develop. There are not just similar but identical uses just down the road. None of those properties are, the Creek Path does touch on them but it does not cut off 40% of their developable area. So, and I'm happy to talk about this further as we get into the discussion, but where I can, granting the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity which are within the identical general commercial zoning district as the subject properties and that a variance if granted would not constitute a special privilege to the subject property which is not held or enjoyed by neighboring properties within the identical zoning district. Well, there's a lot to be said there. So the other thing, the other circumstance that happens at this property is the transition from residential to commercial. Which is why there's a 20 foot rear yard setback. I will say that staff agreed with the applicant that having a lower building with a lot of trees planted in between the fence line and the building, it made more sense to ask for the variance and stay low rather than going high. And again, I mean, the self storage building that's constructed over there now is an attractive building for a self storage structure but I don't think it's anything that, you know I would necessarily want to see in my view although I will say that from my view I looked out at rooftops, but anyways. So anyways, the landscaping and the design that's proposed would help buffer that view. So I'm gonna, the other findings, the variance would not be a substantial detriment to adjacent properties. I think I've talked enough about how that particular one, actually both of them have been designed to be very compatible with what uses are adjacent to them whether it's a creek trail or residential. So again, here is the site. Oh, I got ahead of myself. I was gonna wait and talk to you about the variance findings here. And this may have been a little bit more helpful to look at. I'm included in your packet materials. We had the approved or the recorded final map. This is the creek path that I'm talking about. And in here there's a temporary construction easement for the trunk line because that's being upgraded sometime in the next, actually I thought it was gonna be within a couple of years from the time the project was approved. The previous project was approved but I think we're looking at relatively near future. And that goes on all these dotted lines are basically areas that you cannot develop on that part. So this is where I'm getting my approximately 45%. Again, I say approximate because I bald that. And then, yeah, just to give you the perspective with the aerial there. So the required findings for hillside development permit are listed here, similar to the required findings for the variance and for the conditional use permit. I did load those onto the draft resolutions and felt confident that hillside development required findings for the hillside development permit could be made as I did with the variance findings. The conditional use permit. Here are the six find, well, five findings because I took the CEQA finding, the California Environmental Quality Act finding off and that's addressed later. And again, those were made on the resolution and we were quite confident that they were solid. The project has been found in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission adopted a mitigated negative declaration back in August of 2019 for the recess storage project, the original one. And there's very, very minor environmental impacts with the change, the proposed change. The obvious few, while they're not constructed yet, it's going from housing to commercial. And then, but one of the good ones is that there's a lot less vehicle traffic with self-storage than there is with housing. Aesthetics, which have been addressed with tree mitigation. So we're kind of knocking two issues out with one stone there. And after review, and the addendum concluded that there have been no significant changes in circumstances that would involve newer significant environmental effects, versus a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. So again, because of the construction and in preparation for full site development, all the grading's been done out there. I don't know if, for anybody who's visited the site, that's very apparent. So public comments, we have received, we received some late correspondence today, which I'll talk about a little bit after I get through this. The implementation of site improvements and construction of the existing storage facility was noisy and messy. What can be done to correct those conditions for the next round of development? We have some standard conditions as far as messy. And we do the best we can. I like to think that our contractors, our construction crews are also doing the best they can. So for dust control and what have you. We've also, because of proximity in this time around, because the proximity to residential uses, they have reduced construction hours. I know you've seen several times our construction hours generally go from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8 to 6 p.m. on Saturdays, again, because of Jason's residential uses, we've reduced those construction hours to 8 to 6, Monday through Friday to avoid the morning routine and breakfast and then family dinners, the dinner hour, 6 o'clock. And then on Saturdays from 9 to 5, again avoiding fun stuff in the evening and letting people sleep in a little later, no instruction on Sunday or holidays and that's something that we're all used to seeing. We've asked the applicant to post information, not only for the general contractor, but for the developer as well. When there is a complaint, they don't the residents or nearby neighbors, whether it's residential or business or people walking on the paths, if they have any complaints, they will have access to the property owner as well as the general contractor. And we've made it clear that those issues, any issues raised should be addressed within 24 hours. Now, does that mean it's gonna be resolved when people are upset about dust? We, you know, they need to be using their watering trucks and what have you, the standard control measures with new construction, but you know, if I'm just trying to think of, you know, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily going to go away. There are complaints that stay with construction until construction is done. The other thing that we did was ask the construction trucks and equipment, not far on along Highway 12. There were, we had several complaints from people that were pulling out of the hardware store to the east of this property. And they, it was blocking, you know, Highway 12 takes just a little bit of a curve right there and it kind of blocked the view of oncoming vehicles. So we've asked that all that construction traffic be parked on stream side or on the, you know, the private property there for the project. Why is the city approving a reduction in housing for another self-storage facility? So I'm gonna, I wanna back up time to that original staff pre-application meeting. We had, we actually had two for the original recess storage project. And the first one, they came in with all storage and we suggested, staff suggested that they add affordable housing to the project for a more expeditious review. That was, you know, at the time, that's what we did. The applicant went back to the drawing board and they came back in with a project that had housing but it wasn't affordable housing. And they said, you know, they don't really, they didn't really at that point qualify. They acknowledged, we acknowledged that that was not the reason for an expedited review. Although we did acknowledge that the dedication of the water or the well site would qualify them because we needed that emergency well site. And to the best we could with COVID and with fires and with staffing issues, we expedited that project forward, which did not look very expedited in the end. So for the housing, I wanna point out that the housing, yes, it's an approved project, but it's not one that can be built. It's just not feasible to build those homes or those units at this time, which is why they're back to the drawing board. They wanted to build homes. It's just, it's not something that pencils out. And I'm gonna say, I know that finances are not a reason for a variance, but they are a very real issue. The variance findings staff feels are solid without mention of finances. Okay, this is not an appropriate use along the gateway corridor. Property, this property is not within the gateway. There are a lot of commercial uses. There's some taller buildings going up along the street or being proposed, I should say, along the street. My guesses in 10 years, 15 years, we'll see a mix of taller commercial and residential structures right in this area. There are very similar uses. There's, like I said, a hardware right next door. And next door to that, we have another storage facility. So is the use appropriate, adjacent to existing residential uses? I've talked on that, or I've spoken to that point a couple of times already. I mean, we've got to do the transition somewhere. Does it mean that these uses can't go into that area? I didn't know. A storage facility is allowed in general commercial and they've done the best that they could to design something that's compatible with those residential neighbors. Let's see, and I'm gonna beat this one. They've done single story. That was very intentional for compatibility. There is no exterior access. What that means is no roll-up doors. So that mitigates noise. This will actually be quieter than having residential next door. And then the landscape design that includes a lot of trees. And those trees, by the way, will be much larger container size. They won't be 15 gallon. There will be a mix of 24, 36 and 48 inch box trees. So with that, it's recommended by the Planning and Economic Development Department that the Planning Commission approve the recess storage phase two project at 4465 and 4480 Streamside Drive by approving four resolutions. First, an addendum to the previously adopted recess storage project mitigated negative declaration of variants to allow reduced setbacks, a hillside development permit to allow construction in areas with greater than 10% and a minor conditional use permit to operate a personal self-storage facility. And again, for people calling in, if you have any questions about the project, you can reach me. My name is Susie Murray. Your best bet is always calling. That's 707-543-4348. Or you can email me at S. Murray. I'm sorry, SMURRAY at srcity.org. And I wanna say, clarify, you're best calling me. That rule of thumb probably doesn't apply to others. So, and that concludes my presentation. I know that the applicant would also like to make a presentation. If you have any questions for me, I'm happy to answer. So let's go with questions from Ms. Murray before we hear from the applicant, Commissioner Sisko. Yeah, Ms. Murray, you said this and this is making the findings for a variance is very, very difficult. It's, we have to really be able with confidence to make those findings. And so one question would be, when this project was approved initially, no variance was required in order to build the housing that they planned at that time. So there was room for the housing, okay. And they created this map. They could, I hear you're saying they could reduce the setback size of the buildings, but then it may increase the height of the buildings. So, but they could build smaller units. And if they did that, if we did not grant the variance, they could build smaller units and whatever they proposed would have to be subject to the design review board and then looking at compatibility with adjacent residential uses. Is that true? Okay. Yeah, I believe so. I know it was a consideration. I know it was a consideration, but I think that pretty sure it's a 55 foot height limit in that. Okay. But the design review board could work with them on that if it was too intense for the neighborhood, if we were unable to make the variance findings. Okay. And again, initially when they presented this project, they could have in fact, as well as getting the housing in without a variance, they could have built a smaller storage unit which would have made more room for whatever other uses they put in there, correct? I'm sorry, for the, you mean the existing building or? Yeah, they could have at the time that they did it, it was before us, they had the option of having a smaller initial storage building in order to accommodate whatever other uses were on that property. Oh yeah, initially, I think initially their thought was to go ahead and I'll let the applicant speak to that actually. I know I was at that first pre-application meeting and their initial development was storage. And then they modified it initially to add in affordable housing by the time they came in and actually submitted, it was not affordable housing, it was market rate, but it was still housing. Right, I get that. But no variance was required for any of that at that time that we approved. Yeah. Okay, okay, thanks. Any other questions, Ms. Murray, Vice Chair Peterson? Maybe first, very maybe for the applicant, but why was the trunk line a surprise? Oh, I don't think the trunk line is a surprise. I think we knew about, or we all knew about the trunk line, it was brought up at the, I believe it was brought up at the initial meeting. So it was, at that point, it was one large parcel. So things were designed around that, so that kind of speaks to why the parcels are shaped the way they are. And that trunk line definitely had something to do with it. And they, I'm trying to explain, I mean, they had to squeeze a lot of stuff on here. They had to squeeze not just the above ground, things that we see at well site, there's a lot of subsurface improvements that happened as well. So that's how the parcels were created. And then the project, the uses, the residential uses were designed around that trunk line. And yeah, there's no surprise about the trunk line. It's just that now there is a parcel created. And this is, again, it's the site design if they had initially just gone from corner to corner with storage, that the street may have been landed in a different place, but the street was designed to work with a residential and storage, a mixed use, pretty much. So. Yeah, yeah, I got you. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Duggan. Was the well site part of the original plan? Cause I remember this when it came through with housing that I don't remember anything about the well site being identified on the plans. Oh yeah. The well site was dedicated before the project went forward for decision makers. Okay. Ms. Moore, you mentioned, I believe that the project might have been expedited because it had housing in it. Can you talk a little bit about that? And did they have a benefit in the process by having housing? If they had had affordable housing, there would have been a benefit. Now, I say that, and I look back at those times, I mean, this went through and we've had, since this, we've had a lot of crises around our city. So expedited took on a whole new appearance, right? But this project did not get any expedited review because of its housing, because it wasn't affordable housing. And they knew that. What we had told them was that if they included affordable housing, they would receive expedited review. Okay. That's been the council policy for a while now. When they submitted, they were very, very forthright in saying it was not affordable housing. It was market rate housing. And they knew they couldn't do affordable housing. They couldn't make that pencil. But they wanted to include housing anyway, because they knew that we needed housing. So I'm going to let them talk a little bit more about their reasoning there, but that's been the explanation to me. They went forward with the project. I mean, if this isn't a bait and switch kind of thing, if it had been all storage at the time, it would have looked differently on a map for sure. A street would have gone through. I don't know if it would have been a tentative map or not at the time, if they had done all storage. So, I mean, we can't look back at how it would have been designed. What we see is what was designed, what was created, and looking at what they had to accomplish with that first map and what's there now, what's there to work with. So the city put a lot of requirements on them. And then the well was not a requirement. I'll make that real clear. The well was, they voluntarily sold us the easement. Yeah, the easement, that occurred during the entitlement process, not before any of the hearings, any review authority hearings. But yeah, and for that, the dedication of the well, there was the benefit of expedited review. And again, I'll say, it wasn't really expedited because it just, we ran into so many roadblocks. But yeah, we did the best, staff did the best they could, but the benefit for them, they did get a benefit or a perceived benefit by the dedication of the well site, but not for the housing. Any other questions of Mrs. Murray before we hear from the applicant? Okay, so can we hear from the applicant? Yes, we will promote the applicant in just one moment. Do you know who the applicant is? Do you need a name? Reed Hamilton. Reed Hamilton, Christina and Larry Tom are the names that I saw. Mr. Hamilton, if you would please raise your hand, we have you twice in the list. Thank you. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can, thank you. Oh, hi, okay, excellent. Hi, I'm actually Larry Tom, for some reason my name gets good as Reed Hamilton is the owner of the company. So apologies for that. I'll keep my presentation short and sweet because Susie did such an excellent job and covered basically everything that I had to say here. So first I just want to thank the commission for their time and another thanks to Susie for a fantastic presentation. I'm really appreciate all the time and effort that went into that. First slide that we have here is our landscaping slide. And as you can see, there is extensive landscaping around the proposed developments on lot two and three. We've already spoken in great lengths about the purpose of that, but just a visual representation of what this will look like. Next slide, Susie, please. This is just a breakdown of the plants. And again, as Susie mentioned before, these are native, some of the non-deciduous and trees that promote the pollinating thing, attractive flowering and whatnot to create visual interest along the creek path and elsewhere throughout the project. Next slide, please. As seen already, this is a elevation looking towards the existing facility with the proposed single story entry story there. You can see what it looks like, what it would look like, and then what it would look like once the landscaping and the trees are in place. Next slide, please. This is the elevation coming in from the Streamside Drive extension from the residential neighborhood. Again, see it with and without the landscaping there. Next slide, please. And then this is the Creekside Building one more time with and without landscaping there. And I believe there'll be actually a lot more kind of shrubs filled in the bottom there, but this just kind of gives a general idea of the types of plants that we'll be planting there. Next slide, please. And this is the Creekside path coming from the opposite direction. Forgive me, this parcel's oriented and kind of like a diagonal. So this might be coming Southeast. And I believe it might be one more slide. And then this is just another view of coming in from Streamside, the Streamside extension existing or what it would look like with and without the landscaping there. And then last but not least, this is coming in off of Highway 12 and coming into the facility there. And that kind of ends the presentation. I would like to say that, throughout the entire six years that we've been working with the city of Santa Rosa, we've made every effort to be the best developer and neighbor. When the city said they needed housing, we redesigned our project to accommodate housing even though we're not housing developers. After the fires ravaged the area, the city came to us and asked us for an emergency well easement and we granted that. When the city said they needed to relocate the sewer main easement, we agreed without protest. And when the city required us to improve the frontage along neighboring parcels, we did it. And so we're looking forward to continuing this relationship with our phase two project. Thank you very much and answer any questions that you have. Thank you, Mr. Tom. Are there any questions of the applicant before I open the public hearing? Okay, so with that, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. If you wish to make comment via Zoom, please select the raised hand button. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Just a reminder, each speaker will have three minutes and you see the countdown timer there on your screen. Please make sure to unmute yourself and you're invited to do so and your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown time. So with that. The first speaker will be Elise. Elise, if you would confirm your ability to see the screen and. Yes, I can see it. Can you guys hear me okay? Absolutely, and if you would provide your name for the record, that would be wonderful. Yes, my name is Elise. I am a resident that is of Cal Way Drive. I am right behind what would be the single storage facilities. I'm not sure we're aware of whether the commission read my letter first and foremost, I'm an archeologist and also work on another planning department in another town of the city of Sonoma or not city of County of Sonoma. So my first argument would be against this would be that the noise, regardless of whether the doors are open or not, we can hear people coming in and out of the facility at all hours of the day. Some people do not follow the hours that were set upon that I hear were in place. I have some people that come out like, I think the latest they've come out as like one o'clock in the morning, which is fantastic. And the noise tends to vibrate off of that bit, the large existing building into our area. And I imagine that with both the three story building and the two story buildings behind my house, it would all echo and basically create worse noise than what it currently is. Secondly, as I stated, I am an archeologist. The closer you are to a creek, the likely you are to find archeological and cultural resources. I also wouldn't put it past that we would find also human remains. Next is, what about the trail? Everybody, I utilize this trail, everybody else nearby utilizes this trail. How during the construction are we to utilize this trail when the dust and all of these construction people are coming in and out of our community? And as you said, Susie, you said that people will be parking within basically our community taking up most of our parking spaces, which we are already at capacity, I would say. You should come by on garbage day. It's pretty bad. And like we've really all discussed, the storage facility was previously allotted for housing. I hate to say in the first place, why did you build that facility in the first place? Why are you coming back now? And the situation with the city taking back certain things and putting in certain things. It sounds more like a quid pro quo to me. You're trying to maintain this relationship and you're trying to squeeze this large building into a small area. Why not just create a building that actually fits in that area or create something for the community that actually benefits the city? I'm trying to fit everything in here. And also building a one story building. I should go back and say, should I feel grateful that they're building a one story building in my backyard? I don't feel grateful. I'm gonna be honest. And I think I fit that all. And yeah, if anybody has questions, yes. Thank you. Any other members of the public for this item? We have no additional hands raised at this time. Thank you. So with that, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. This item has four resolutions. Dwayne Schercisco. I hope I was unmuted, I muted myself. Before we go through the resolutions to discuss the project, I wanna see and maybe Ms. Crocker can give some advice here if I could make a motion to continue this project for redesign in order to establish a discussion about taking the temperature of the commission as to whether they feel that's in order. I can tell you right now, I'm not gonna be able to make the findings for the variance. So anyway, so as opposed to starting with all the resolutions, I would like to make a motion for the commission to consider continuing this item to a date uncertain for redesign. Okay, so we have a motion on the table from Commissioner Schercisco and Ms. Crocker, can you help us with this? I think we can go ahead and ask for a second on that motion but I wanna make sure I'm not running a foul or something. Yes, that would be correct. Okay, is there a second on the motion? Commissioner Duggan. I'll second the motion. Okay, thank you. So with that, the motion on the table is to, let me think if I can paraphrase what you said, is to continue this item to a date uncertain so that it can be, the project can be redesigned. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And I can start the discussion here. You know, I mean, I appreciate this applicant and all that they've been doing to work with the city but my concern is that we have to make these findings for a variance, which are very difficult to make. We do not issue variances lightly. And what I see here and what I see possible in having them redesign it is to remove the need for a variance, the first two findings for the variance of a non-self created hardship. I can't make those, they created this map and now they're stuck with it and they wanna change it which I can appreciate, but it does seem like there are ways to go about changing it without us issuing without us making the findings for a variance which I can't do. So just like to throw that out on the table for others to see what they think. Thank you. So let's make the rounds. Let's go to Commissioner Duggan since you made this second on this and then we'll go back alphabetically if that's okay. I don't know. I can appreciate Commissioner Siscoe's motion. I think the two of us for the only two here who were acted on the original project. And I remember at the time thinking that the housing was sort of not the greatest fit. I'm not entirely imposed to storage in the other parcels here, but I do think that they kind of by building the really large building and creating these two small parcels kind of lock themselves into creating this hardship that they now have identified. And I think maybe there would be a way if they wanna maintain housing or maintain storage to make the two one-story building slightly bigger and make the third building slightly smaller. But so I would consider a redesign. Thank you. Commissioner Carter comments on this item? I think both my fellow commissioners have spoken already have made an excellent point about, the map was created by the applicant. So it's really hard to make that it's not a self-created hardship here and the variance is gonna be very difficult. Yeah, we have a map and now we have a land use that doesn't fit on it and we're trying to change it back to another land use. I think taking some time might be appropriate in this case. Okay, Commissioner Krepke? There we go. Yeah, I agree with my fellow commissioners have spoken already. This is a self-inflicted hardship in my opinion and making the findings for the variance is gonna be difficult for me as well. I respect the applicant's comments on being a good partner with the city and I hope the applicant understands that continuing this is not us trying to be a bad partner. It's us trying to find a way. We can easily just vote this down and have it be done with but we wanna find a way to get this done and I'll be happy to realize that's our method of being a good partner to try to find a solution or compromise of works. Thank you and Vice Chair Peterson. Yes, I mean, I think I'm on the same page and that's my question about the trunk was about was this it's just I feel like our hands are kind of tied here and this is really the best way out. It was a weird project in 2019 but at least it had pre-site activation at that point and now it's just gonna be hard to make that finding for the variance. So I think if we can get some more time, get some new ideas, I think that, you know, to Commissioner Krupi's point is really the best way to work this out. Thank you. I also was on the commission when we look at this the first time and with Commissioner Sisko and that I would not have been able, it'd be very, very hard to make the findings on the variance. So I'm in agreement about putting this back on the drawing board and continuing it to a date and certain Ms. Crocker, can we go ahead and have a vote on this motion that Commissioner Sisko put on the table and Commissioner Duggan seconded? The applicant has asked for an opportunity to speak before you take the vote. So we can just give the applicant that opportunity and then you can go ahead and pick up with the vote. Okay, thank you. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. So my name is Reed Hamilton, I'm the owner of the company. To say I'm frustrated and disappointed would be a giant understatement. When dealing with municipalities, we always try to do our best to be diplomatic and having been six years into this project, my level of frustration is just absolutely boiling over. As Larry said, we have done everything we possibly can to try to be the best developer we can be. This self-inflicted hardship that we keep talking about, that was out of pure, trying to be like I said, a good community member, trying to find housing. And I understand that the financial impact is not a big deal or it's not justified for a hardship, but I can tell you guys, we're not a giant company. The entire company is on the Zoom call, there's three of us. And we are multiple, multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars in the hole because of the guidance that we've taken from the city of Santa Rosa. And so when you guys ask us to go back to the drawing board, I mean, for me personally, the city behind the Zoom, if you guys could see me, my hands are up in the air. We can't do too much more than what we've been directed and guided to do. And to get to this point, to get to this meeting, we're I think $43,000 in fees that is gone. And so like I said, I've been to hundreds of these meetings and I try to stay diplomatic and you can hear it in my voice that we are beyond frustrated with the city of Santa Rosa. And to have this meeting be like this is it's just flat out a disappointment. And so at the end of the day, we're gonna probably try to put our best foot forward again, but we're disappointed and that's the honest truth. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. Any other comments by the commission? Okay, so we have a motion on the table and it is to continue to a date uncertain for a redesign that was moved by commissioner Cisco and seconded by commissioner Duggan. Commissioner Cisco, did I state your motion? You did. Perfect. Okay, thank you. Okay, so with that, if we could have a roll call on this motion. Commissioner Carter. Aye. Commissioner Cisco. Aye. Commissioner Duggan. Aye. Commissioner Holton. It appears we have lost. I think he dropped off. Yeah. Commissioner Okrepke. Aye. Vice Chair Peterson. Aye. Chair Weeks. Aye. So that passes with six eyes, one absent, commissioner Holton being absent. And I would like the applicant to note that this action is final unless an appeal is filed within 10 calendar days unless filed within 10 calendar days of today's action. The time limit will extend to the following business day if the last day falls on a day that the city has closed and for information on how to submit an appeal form, please contact the project planner, Ms. Murray. So with that, we will take a short break and I will pass the gavel over to Vice Chair Peterson. And good night, everybody. Okay, it looks like we've got everybody. So I'd like to call the meeting back to order. I move on to item 8.3. This is a public hearing the appeal of the Elm Tree Station Certificate of Compliance and Personal Map Waiver 874 North Right Road, CC 18-004. This is an ex parte item. So I'll be going through the list. If you have anything to declare, if I can start with you, Commissioner Carter. I have visited the site and have no further information to declare. Commissioner Sisko. I've visited the site and I have no new information to disclose. Commissioner Duggan. I have visited the site and have no additional information to disclose. Commissioner Ocrepti, I visited the site and I have nothing else to disclose. And I have nothing to disclose. So this is the first appeal in a while. So I'd like to give just a quick roadmap to everybody out there who's watching as well as the commission. So the way it will work is we're gonna have a staff presentation with the project planner, Mike Wixon. We'll have a representative from the subdivision committee present after that, followed by the applicant and their representatives presentation. The appellant then we'll have a chance to speak and the applicant will have a chance to respond. And after each of those, we'll have time for questions. So before we start that, I just wanna confirm, I haven't heard anything from Commissioner Holton. Any issue with proceeding, Ms. Crocker? No, you may proceed. You have a quorum to hear this item. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Mike Wixon for the staff presentation. Okay. I'm trying to share my screen right now. So give me one second here. Here's the presentation. Okay. So that looks right. Hopefully that looks right on your end. And I'll go ahead. It's still spinning, just a spinning loading screen for me. I don't know about other commissioners. Okay, I'll give it a sec. There we go. Okay, great. Great. Mike, we can see your notes on your presentation and you're muted, Mike. Okay. There you go. Now do you wanna switch into your presentation mode? Let me, yeah, if I can take a moment and pull up the other slide presentation without the notes, let me see if I can find out and get that. Am I able to do that? Yes. Sorry, you're freezing a little bit. Go to, oh wait, they just disappear. Go to file. Hi, Mike. This is, I mean, I'm gonna go ahead and just walk you through this. Okay. If you wanna go ahead and open up that PowerPoint. You want me to reopen it, Eileen? That would be wonderful. Thank you. We're also pulling it up on this then. So we'll kind of do whoever gets their first will share the screen. Open it up. Yeah, it's spinning. You know what? We're gonna take care of it on this then. It'll just take us one more second. I apologize for the delay. How does that look? Looks good. Mike, as you're going, just say next when you're ready to have us advance the slide. Okay, great, thank you. So good afternoon or evening now, Vice Chair and Acting Chair and members of the commission. My name is Michael Wixen and I'm a contract planner with your Planning Department of Economic Development and Planning Department. And this item is an approved parcel map waiver and certificate of compliance appeal. So as you stated just a minute ago, this is an appeal and it's a little unique in that way. So the first thing I wanted to do is just briefly explain to you what a parcel map waiver is. It's not even often that the commission will see a parcel map waiver. So a parcel map waiver is basically an optional method of subdividing land where a parcel map would typically be used otherwise. So it could be used where different determinations are made so where these indicators are there or these conditions are there, things like the area of the parcel, the improvement in design, floodwater drainage control, et cetera. Those factors are present. Then it meets the criteria to then be processed as a parcel map waiver. And then following that, there's also certificate of compliance that's required as kind of a replacement for the parcel map, if you will. So the next question that comes to mind might be is how is a parcel map waiver process? Well, it's a process very similarly to a tentative map. So just like a tentative map, you have a public hearing notice. Just like a tentative map, it goes before a board. In this case, it was subdivision and committee action. And just like a tentative map, you have conditions of approval before you're filing any of the documents would then later on subdivide the property. And in fact, I skipped ahead there, sorry. So just like with conditions of approval, those would also be placed on a parcel map waiver. And those would need to be completed before any of the documents would be able to record before you can divide the property. So this specific project, again, this specific project is an appeal of a parcel map waiver. So back in December 12, 2019, the subdivision committee approved a parcel map waiver and a certificate of compliance for what was known and is known as the Elm Tree Station Project. And then just a few days following that, Mr. Woody Hastings filed an appeal of the subdivision committee action. And that's what brings us here. So the actual parcel map waiver and certificate of compliance, as I mentioned, is meant to divide property and it acts kind of like a tentative map here. And so if you will, this map or this request was to divide a 0.98 acre parcel into two parcels and these two parcels essentially will facilitate the development of what's known as the Elm Tree Station Project. So parcel one was intended is approximately 31,000 square feet and then parcel two is approximately 11,000 square feet. And again, both of these parcels are intended to facilitate the types of uses that would be permitted in the zone and then those uses that were actually requested at the time for the Elm Tree Station Project. So the project itself is located on North Right Road and it's located north of Sebastopol Road. It's located east of North Right Road. You can see the star there indicating the parcel and then it's south of Highway 12, just off of Highway 12 right there. The general plan and zoning for the site, it's a retail and business services general plan land use designation and then the zoning for the site is a plan development 435 which basically it's referred to as the Right Sebastopol Commercial District. So it's in a commercial district. This is actually the exhibit map that was reviewed by the subdivision committee back in 2019 and this is just an indicator how those uses would then be placed on the parcels that would be created to facilitate what was known as the Elm Tree Station Project at the time. And so what I'd like to do also is go into a little bit of the history but not all the history and I just wanna give some highlights on the history. So everybody has a good understanding of where we are today and how it came to be at this point. So this is reaching back a little bit to the very beginning of the project and back in 2007 the Planning Commission actually reviewed a conditional use permit for the construction of the service station and basically two types of fueling stations along with the neighborhood market and a drive-through restaurant and that was on the subject property. At the time that included a zoning code text amendment and if that were to be approved at the time it would have allowed the uses like a service station to be adjacent to residential uses and there is a residential land use designation in the zoning code immediately to the east of this project site. So in order to avoid being immediately adjacent to it the text amendment was proposed at the time with the use permit. The Planning Commission didn't support the idea of amending the text amendment and they denied the project a little while after the July 12th date and basically brought it back and it looked like to prepare a resolution to deny the project as it was presented then with the zoning code text amendment. And so what that by denying it with prejudice at the time it prevented any applications from being submitted for 12 months and sure enough nothing was submitted for 12 months and it was actually a few years later that another application was submitted again and the applicant at that point was submitting a conditional use permit for the same uses a design review permit for the same structures and then a tentative map to divide the property so in a manner so that the service station uses would not be directly adjacent to the residential property to the east. So the Planning Commission considered those applications and then on October 24th in 2013 the Planning Commission approved three resolutions one to adopt the mitigated negative declaration for the project, one to approve the conditional use permit and then one to approve the tentative map for the project. And then on December 19th in 2013 just a short time after the Planning Commission action the design review board approved the preliminary design review and then shortly thereafter the design review board again approved the final design review for the project. Then following that a few years later so that at that point the project was fully approved it had the environmental review had a conditional use permit, had design review had a mitigated negative declaration but following that on June 18th the applicant filed for parcel map waiver and certificate of compliance in response to the determination by staff that the tentative map had expired. So basically this followed about four years after the initial approval and the tentative map had come to a place where staff had made that determination. So at the request of staff the applicant then submitted a parcel map waiver request and certificate of compliance. At the time that that was done it was believed by everybody at least at that time it was known by everybody that the other applications for the conditional use permit and the design review permit were approved. So it was thought that they were all approved at that point the parcel map waiver request was being processed with that in mind. On November 14th the certificate of compliance application was deemed complete and then on December 12th, 2019 the subdivision committee approved the parcel map waiver and the certificate of compliance with the conditions and with the findings that are included in your staff report. Then just a few days thereafter Mr. Woody Hastings filed an appeal of the subdivision committee approval and that is exactly what we're considering right now. I wanted to follow up a little bit also because the conditional use permit and design review permit subsequent to the subdivision committee action were also had also expired during that time. And so the applicant has since then submitted applications to essentially put back in place all of the applications necessary to pursue the Elm Tree Station project. So right now staff does have on file two applications one for conditional use permit and one for design review for the Elm Tree Station project and those applications have been deemed complete by the planning staff and those are kind of waiting in the wings pending the outcome of this appeal in front of you tonight. So the grounds for the appeal I wanna be sure that those are out there and in front of you and you understand those that Mr. Hastings essentially had written down his contention that the committee did not adequately take into account these significant changes that have occurred since the project was last before a decision-making body. So if you remember it was basically in 2013 that it was brought back or brought back from the original project and then some time in past extensions had been being pursued and then all of a sudden the tentative map had been found to have expired and then the applicant then submitted at the request of staff this parcel map waiver application and so it had been a few years and so therefore Mr. Hastings had made this as his contention stated grounds for the appeal. There was also some information that was presented to staff that was not presented to the subdivision committee necessarily in writing but it came to us in the process of this appeal in the last few months. And so the information is essentially more detailed notes of what was brought up at the subdivision committee and we wanted to be sure that that was brought forward and everybody was aware of that. So we presented that in the staff report and then we wanna be sure we're addressing it here tonight. So there are essentially five issues that were raised at the subdivision committee at that public hearing. And there were a lot of notes that were presented a lot of speaking but essentially these five issues are aggregated to capture the concerns expressed by the public. And so I wanted to go through each one of these if I can and the first one was basically the lack of public hearing records from the earlier project files and that they weren't provided before acting on the current certificate of compliance. And just to be sure that there really is no need for those public hearing records to be available at the subdivision committee meeting. And there's nothing in those public hearing records to demonstrate that the public hearing was properly posted. And that was really the contention. So there's nothing in that claim that would prevent the subdivision committee from considering what was in front of them which was the parcel map waiver and the certificate of compliance project. So that one we did not see as an issue and moreover that those public hearing records being posted and having been placed in the press Democrat are available. We've been able to locate those. So we do have those available. So if anybody's interested, I can certainly provide them with that information. Number two, there was an error, a claim that there was an error of the parcel size and location in the staff report. And that was true. There was a minor error in the report but there's also a lot of other information that was accurately provided about the parcel and location. And especially as it related to the public hearing notice, the discussion of the project itself, that seemed that everybody was fully aware of the project of the public hearing and what it was about, the size, the location, et cetera. The third claim or issue had to do with the adoption of the city's use of the high fire severity map that was used by the fire department and by the city. And their claim was that because in the Tubbson on fire that it had crossed over Highway 12, that the high fire severity map used by the city wasn't an accurate map and should have been changed. Well, the map hasn't been changed. It's still used by staff. It does reflect what has felt to be the high fire severity zone by the city. And that's been confirmed by fire. Moreover, that the project itself was conditioned to comply with all the fire department requirements for fire suppression. And so again, that issue was felt to be just not something to then revisit the project. The next issue was a claim that previously adopted environmental document was outdated and should be rejected and that a new document prepared because it didn't address greenhouse gas emissions or wetlands or trees on site. And I think you just heard this in your previous presentation that actually CEQA has a big emphasis on trying to reuse the existing environmental documents where that's feasible for projects that are similar, basically the same project. Since there's really no change in the project and that there is no findings of any substantial change or any substantial change to the circumstances under which the project was, or the project mitigated negative declaration was originally approved, the document seems to be good and valid. And then it also seemed that the subdivision committee actually acted properly in relying on that document when it did make the finding to basically state that the project would not have a significant environmental impact. So that, again, that claim was not felt to be something that would be worth approving the appeal and then pursuing this claim. So now I move on to number five. The claim was also that the applicant had not completed all the conditions of approval. And then that was particularly the municipal stormwater sewer system and urban stormwater mitigation plan and the city's low impact development guidelines. Well, it's very uncommon that you would have an applicant come to a public hearing for approval of their project where all the conditions would be approved or have been completed, I should say. So it's normal for the conditions to be put in place for the information to be presented to demonstrate that the applicant can comply with all of the city's requirements for the storm sewer system, the urban mitigation plan, the city's low impact development guidelines. And so there was enough information presented to the subdivision committee to demonstrate that the project could comply and would comply with the city's requirements at the time. And so again, this wasn't felt to be something that would cause the appeal in staff's opinion to be looked at further. So there were a number of emails that were received on this project. And one of the items that kind of came to the front had to do with the requirements of the parcel map waiver and when the city might consider them under what circumstances. I covered the process, I covered what it is, but there are several circumstances that the city would need to basically look at and see that those are in place before the subdivision committee would then consider and the city staff would process a parcel map waiver. And I wanna also indicate that these criteria are established by the city. The subdivision map act pretty much leaves it to the local entity to establish their process and how they would accommodate the waiver, the parcel map. And I think Gabe Osborn is there. I'm hoping he is. He might be able to speak to this in more detail, but essentially these are the city's guidelines to use or the text within which the city would process a parcel map waiver. Obviously the subdivision committee and staff felt that these items were in place to process the application initially. And what you can see in here is that there's no requirement for an actual size of a parcel. So we had heard a lot of emails, read a lot of emails that had to do with the particular size of a parcel and there really is nothing for a particular parcel size in the city's code. And I wanted to just emphasize that to the commission. We talked about SQL just a little bit earlier, but again, I want to re-emphasize this. The planning commission did approve a resolution for this project as the Yontree Station Project back in 2013. The subdivision committee in acting on December 12th, 2019 did consider it and they considered it the ISMND document and did not determine that any substantial changes had occurred to the project or in the area. And so the subdivision committee determined that the previous document was adequate. So now that kind of brings us to what the planning commission can do with this and I just wanted to cover this briefly. The planning commission in its code can consider any issue involving the matter that is the subject of the appeal including in addition to the specific grounds for the appeal. So the planning commission options essentially like most projects, you can uphold the appeal and basically that would be denying the parcel map waiver. You can modify the appeal in some way or deny the appeal and uphold the subdivision committee's action to approve the parcel map waiver. So the one thing I wanted to touch on here very briefly is kind of a what if. So what if the commission upholds the appeal and denies the parcel map waiver request that the subdivision committee has approved. If that were to occur, it's very likely that the applicant would then submit a tentative map application. Remember, we have two applications already in our midst and in our processes. And so together with a tentative map application submitted and following the determination that that was a complete application, the city would have all the applications necessary to then process the project and continue moving forward with that project again. The other option that I wanted to cover is what if the appeal itself were denied and then the subdivision committee action was upheld. And if that were the case, then the parcel map waiver stands and the two, the conditional use permit and the design review permit projects and applications would then proceed forward. And in that process, there would be other public hearings and opportunities for public comment. And that, by the way, that happens either case. So just to point that out. Then the last thing I wanted to point out and I've forgotten, I'll cover it here. I think this is where I wanted to be sure to cover it. The commission's well aware and most of the audience is well aware of the fact that the city has a draft ordinance to ban gas stations citywide. And that that draft ban ordinance has been through the city planning commission and has been passed on with minor modifications and recommended for approval by the planning commission to the city council. And that item is going to be considered by the city council later this month. And if that were adopted in its current form, the way that it would, this application would interact with that is that this application would have technically, all applications would be considered complete, probably and most likely before the ordinance would go into effect. And pending that determination, then those applications would continue to be processed. Essentially is a kind of an exemption, if you will, from the draft ban that's being processed right now. So hopefully I've made that clear that how that would interact and what the options are for the commission at this point in time. And by the way, that also has another opportunity for a public comment in front of the city council when it hears that draft ordinance. So the recommendation at this point, the subdivision committee has adopted the necessary findings to approve the parcel map waiver and the certificate of compliance. And they did that at their December 12th meeting following the public hearing that there are no significant changes that staff is aware of that have occurred since then and would warrant reconsideration of that decision that the subdivision committee and planning department recommend that the planning commission uphold the approval and then deny the appeal at this point in time. So that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to try and answer any questions. That number given is a general number to the planning department. So I know Susie was saying that, please call me. I would highly recommend you please write me on an email if you have any questions following this meeting. Be happy to follow up. And that concludes my presentation. Well, I do have, I know that Mr. Hastings is the next to speak and I do have his presentation ready. And if I can't get it going, I know that Eileen also has that ready to go. So we can get that going for Eileen. And then following that, Miss Jean Kapolchak also has her presentation ready to represent the applicant. And so those two presentations are following what I have here. And that concludes my presentation. I hope you're still there. That's a long presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wixen. Do the commissioners have any questions at this point? Yes, I saw Mr. Krepke first. Thank you. So just a couple of clarifying questions more to simplify it, but should this appeal be denied as recommended? There's multiple applications that would have to be heard through the Planning Commission again, is that correct? That is correct. Okay, and then is this action by us today appealable to city council? Oh, thank you for bringing that up. I forgot to mention that this is a final action. And so this action is as an appeal. So this appeal is not appealable any further. This would be it. This is the final action on the appeal. Okay, but those further hearings for the other applications would be appealable should they be passed, correct? Yes, yes, completely. And then this might be better a question for Claire, but to confirm with the proposed ban, this is one of two, I think the other ones on the middle rink and road that was recommended to be sort of carved out as they're in process, but that's merely a recommendation and the city council can just throw that out if they so choose, right? And I'll put an end to this. Yeah, so as Mr. Wixen has explained that in the current draft ordinance that was passed by the commission that will be considered by public hearing with the city council, a complete application for a gas station could be considered and this, so if they subsequently to action in their favor tonight, they would complete an application. The missing link I think would be the tentative map application. If that was all found complete by the effective date of that gas ban ordinance, then that would go be eligible to go through its public hearing process. So, yes, but to... Conversely though, what I'm asking is that city council doesn't have to adhere to that. They could throw out that recommendation, correct? So they're just gonna, they're going, they have the opportunity to consider that draft ordinance that's gonna be before them on August 23rd. And they can make, they can approve it as is, they can deny it as is, or they can amend it and approve it as they see fit. Thank you. And I saw commissioner Cisco next. Yeah, this is a clarification question. If we deny the appeal in the parcel map and waiver and the certificate of compliance are going forward, they're project specific, correct? It's, I guess what I'm asking is, what's the results of this action if in fact the project itself gets denied? Do we end up with a subdivided piece or does the whole thing go down because it's tied to this project and complying with certain conditions? So if the commission denies the appeal, the parcel map waiver stands individually and then the applications for the conditional use permit and the design review will move ahead and we'll have further public hearings. If the planning commission agrees with the appellant and then upholds the appeal, then it's only project specific like you're mentioning. So it is, it's an appeal just for the parcel map waiver. And most likely the applicant would then apply for a tentative map in addition to the other applications that are on file. And I hope that answers the question that you were. Actually it doesn't, but what I'm looking for is how cemented in place is this subdivision, the parcel map waiver, if in fact the project it's attached to gets denied. In other words, do we have a subdivided piece of 11,000 square feet that's the way it is or does this all go away if we turn that project down? The tentative, this project approval would last and it would continue on even if the other projects were denied. And if that's what you're asking and I think that's what you're asking. And so yes, it would last, it would stand. However, it's doubtful that the documents, you could ask Ms. Kapolchak, she would be able to answer more directly, but it's doubtful that the documents would be filed because they're tied to a project that includes funding. Okay. And Mr. Duggan? Yeah, I've got a couple of questions. So when at the time that the tentative map expired, was it still eligible for extensions? And it just got something, somebody misted the ball and they didn't file for an extension. Yeah, it just missed the extensions. And so there was, that's a tough one to answer directly because it's not readily clear exactly what happened, but essentially there was, through trying to determine whether or not that was tentative map was still eligible and an application had been submitted in a timely manner, it was somehow determined that that wasn't done. And here we are. And so in the case of a project like this, if the tentative map expires, is getting a parcel map waiver, is that the only other recourse or can you do another tentative map or what's your path forward if you wanna revive the project? No, it's not, you could have actually in essence applied for either one. It's a more, maybe a streamlined way to go if you wanna consider it that way. And it was something that staff felt was fitting of what was happening at the time, knowing that at the time, you recall everybody had felt that the other applications were also valid and that they were in place. And so we were just really focusing on the tentative map as a way to process the division of property. And once that had expired, I think felt that this was a little bit easier and simpler to then complete the project. Okay, and then my final question is, are there more or different I guess requirements with the parcel map waiver versus the tentative map? Like, does the project have to be built at one time? Can it be parted out? Can they say build the gas station on that bigger parcel and then say we lost our funding, we're not gonna do the other side, it's just gonna stay empty or can they sell off the other parcel without developing it like the plans or is the plan all one project? So I think that goes to Commissioner Sisko's issue or question that she just asked. So if this moves forward and it was approved, basically the appeals denied and making the parcel map waiver stand as an approved application, then if the applicant went forward, completed all the conditions of approval and then presented the documents for recordation, they could actually record the documents to divide the property. Upon doing so, if they were to divide the property, they could then sell those parcels off to anybody and those parcels could then be developed under the current zoning code requirements and general plan, depending on how that goes, what kind of a project it is. But it would be processed under the current general plan and zoning code. So they could sell those off. However, as I mentioned, I don't know that that's likely and again, you might ask the applicant to this. I don't see it as likely that they would do that because there's a lot of investment in those conditions of approval that are tied to a project. And if their project wasn't approved, I don't know that they would move forward, however they could. So Mike, if I could, I would like to have a gay Bosburn jump in here for a moment. Thanks, Mike and thanks, Jessica. Yeah, just to give a little more clarity on that, basically the way it works from a subdivision standpoint and this gets into a little bit of the findings that the subdivision committee made is parcel maps are unique by nature and it's due to the fact that they involve a reduced number of lots. So from a complexity standpoint, they have a tendency to not get that involved. So from a parcel map waiver standpoint, we make the finding that they can either meet the conditions needed to support the infrastructure for the development or they can't and that's part of the finding. And I think the important point in this particular case is Seward and Water was available in the street, sidewalks were in, the lots fronted on that street, really the only onsite common improvement was the trail. So basically subdivisions can be 100% independent from onsite development. Someone can come in and say, I just want to subdivide land. And then that development comes in and that development can change the situation of public infrastructure because driveway connections can move, circulation can change, but usually when you front on an existing street, those changes are very minor. So to answer the question, these are really two independent operations. The approval on the parcel map waiver is basically approving a process. It's essentially saying instead of submitting a tentative map, you are able to submit a certificate of compliance. That certificate of compliance still requires review and it still requires recreation prior to creating lots. So there still is an additional step there. It's very similar to a tentative map and final map. And in between that time, the city can require certain things and those things may be coming into play when the sites are developing or there may be general infrastructure we need for circulation for pedestrian access. So I think the important point is nothing concretes this in. The applicant is given a right to act on that certificate and that certificate is backed by a set of improvement plans that show how to support those lots that really have existed from the previous development. So those improvements can be constructed without any onsite development. Now if the onsite development comes through and runs afoul to those improvements in any way, then it's changed through that process. So the applicant usually runs these together to make sure the cart doesn't get before the horse with the public infrastructure and then the onsite improvements really change that. So it's a little challenging because it's very related and it's usually packaged together in a similar fashion because it's all brought together as one application but technically they can stand alone. And that process was really heavily discussed in the Sub-Division Committee meeting because it was about that process and it was about that decision to say either tentative map or certificate. But the improvement requirements, that decision would be the same as to whether it was a tentative map or a parcel map waiver. So to answer the question about resurrection of an expired tentative map, it is a suitable way. Historically, most of our processes have just submitted for a new tentative map. That's been the standard protocol but in this situation, since the improvements were so minor, most of what was needed was already in. It was easier to make the finding and the applicant requested it, brought it in front of the Sub-Division Committee and provided the appropriate evidence to make those findings. So it's not always used, but it can be used. And in this particular case, the Sub-Division Committee made the finding that it was appropriate. I hope that helps tie it all together. Thank you. Now, I had you up next, Mr. Osborn. I don't know if we maybe jumped the shark a little bit with that last explanation, but. Happy to go. I'll build both of that last explanation. And excuse me, unless there are any other questions from the commissioners for staff specifically and seeing none, go ahead. Thank you very much. So as far as the decisions that the Sub-Division Committee made, I was present in that meeting. There were quite a few community members in that meeting. What was brought to the table was to basically allow a certificate of compliance to replace the final map. So the certificate of compliance would replace and create those lots that were proposed under the final map. As part of that process, the applicant delivered the improvement plans to show how that infrastructure was being supported to make the appropriate findings in the code. And as Mr. Wixen showed in previous slides, most of those findings are very technical based. They're about the infrastructure that is needed to support those lots. And the applicant was able to show how the sidewalk was coming in. They were maintaining the pathway off a Joe Rodota trail and they were proposing that as part of the process. That wasn't taken out of the plan. The sewer and water connections were being made and the sewer and water systems were available in the street. As part of stormwater design and those sort of things where it's more LID related components, those are triggered by the building permit. So the applicant shows that they have appropriate space for that. And that's the only finding that we typically make as part of that process. And those infrastructure pieces aren't installed until the building permit went in. So much of the community concern through that process was associated with the use. We tried to stick to what the decision was on the table, which was to once again, decide on the process. Is it appropriate to allow the division of the land and the lock configuration through a tentative map and a final map or to allow that through certificate of compliances? Much of the conversation with the community was about that was going over the design to show how the design did not change. That it was essentially the exact same design that was brought in before the planning commission with the tentative or the entitlement processes. It got more detailed as it evolved to more construction drawings and the developer is still really on the back end of that process. That plan is very close to being signed by the city engineer. So that built the higher level of confidence that all the conditions that weren't quite easily identified as being met by the existing infrastructure could be met by the new design. So the subdivision committee was able to make that finding that it was appropriate but once again, the narrow band of responsibility was making the determination that those lots can be created through a certificate. And what that means instead of filing final map to create the lot, it is done by D. So it's a really essentially a means to the same end as far as the logistics of creating land but it does change the process. We did talk about the public process associated with that with the subdivision committee. It's the same noticing. It's the same body that would act on a tentative map. So that process was very similar from a community engagement standpoint. And then once again, at the end of that, the subdivision committee was able to make a unanimous finding which is required as part of that process to say that the proposal met the conditions specified in the city code. Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Osborne? All right. Not seeing any, the next one I had up is the applicant's representative, Gene Polchak. I don't know how we're handling this presentation, but I think we're all ready when you are. You know what? We will handle the presentation from here. Gene, if you would just prompt us by saying next when you're ready for us to go to the next slide, that would be wonderful. Okay, that's great. I'll just take us one moment to open that up for you. Thank you. Okay. Good evening Vice Chair Peterson, members of the Planning Commission, Gene Polchak. 1,500 Manzanita Avenue, Santa Rosa, land use consultant for Atletree Station. With me today are the applicants, Mongo Dillon, the Projects Engineer, Eric Wade, and the Projects Council, David Timlador. Before I move into my PowerPoint presentation, I would like to address some of the questions that have been asked by the Planning Commission. There was a question asked about, did we just fail to not file necessary extensions and just had the map expired? This project, hopefully as you will see when we move forward to the use permit, has a very, very complex entitlement process. At this point, it was believed that the tentative map was what had not expired, that it was extended through a legislative process, AB 116. It was only later on that it was, what we became aware, even the engineering department thought that the map was alive. So it wasn't missing an extension by any fault of our own. It was really just a very, very complicated entitlement process. Also, Planning staff, Mike Whitson indicated that we would have an option at this point to file a tentative map. That is not correct. Yes, we could, but what effectively would happen is our project would be denied through, would be no longer possible, assuming the anti-gas ordinance gets adopted, because that ordinance only potentially exempts projects that are deemed complete. If we were to file a tentative map tomorrow, it would not be possible for us to file it tomorrow because the tentative map still needs to be prepared by the engineer. The mapping is different than what was required for the certificate of modification. So we'd file that map, even if we filed it in a week or so, the ordinance goes in front of the city council on August 23rd. The effective date would be 30 days after that. That is just way too close to the liar to think that we would have the ability to file a tentative map, have it be reviewed by staff, have it be deemed complete by September 23rd. And as you heard from your staff member, Gabe Osborne, the difference between for a two lot subdivision, so it's a parcel map versus a certificate of compliance that is very, very similar. The conditions are similar. The findings are identical. And the difference is what gets recorded. It gets recorded by easements instead of in fact a map. Also, I wanted to address the comment having to do with, well, if we just allow the creation of two parcels with the applicant build the front half and not build the park parcel. That can be handled through conditions of approval with the use permit. It can be conditioned such that both portions of the project if you will move forward. And given the connectivity of the use with the availability of the park parcel and how the circulation works, we would be fine with that. There was no intention of just building out the front parcel and not creating the park parcel. So with that, I'd like to then move into my presentation. Next slide, please. Okay, as indicated by staff, the item before you is an appeal of the Elm Tree Station waiver of parcel match certificate of compliance. The subdivision process that was used to create the two parcels. You've received a lot of information on this and hopefully the distinction between a tentative map now in a waiver of parcel map has been made clear in how this parcel does in fact qualify for a waiver process. Next slide, please. As you can see from this slide, the subdivision through the certificates process will create two parcels. It will create a commercial parcel and a park parcel. However, the use of these parcels is not before you. That matter will come before you at a later date under a conditional use permit, which is currently being processed. So to state it another way, the denial of today's appeal will not grant any of these proposed uses. Those uses will require action on a conditional use permit. Next slide, please. As seen on this slide and as presented by staff as well, the waiver of a parcel map was recommended by staff. Again, this project has an extraordinarily complex entitlement history and it was the recommendation of staff that we move forward. With the certificate process. Also, as you heard earlier this evening, they were in terms of findings, subdivision findings as you'll see in the next slide and conditioning of the project between a parcel map waiver and the certificate compliance and a tentative map. They were essentially the same. Next slide, please. In this slide and in the subsequent slide, these are the findings that the subdivision committee made. You will see in the first bullet that, and you heard this evening from Mr. Osborne, that the use of the ability to process the two parcels under a parcel map waiver in condition of approval was considered and reviewed by the city, the project engineer and the deputy director, Mr. Osborne. The project, as you will see in these two slides and I won't read them individually. The project is consistent with the general plan and the remaining findings of the subdivision committee are the legal findings for approving of a subdivision. So the findings through a parcel map waiver are the same as the findings through a tentative map process. Next slide, please. And we can, again, these findings, the same findings of what would be through a tentative map. They are the statutory findings for a subdivision. Next slide, please. If today's appeal is denied, the use permit and the design review applications will be allowed to move forward. The project will become before you and can be assessed on its own merits. And as in questioning earlier today, there will be a number of opportunities for the public to address yourselves in the city council relative to this project. This appeal, should the appeal be denied, cannot be appealed further. So that's the end for the appeal process. However, the use permit design review applications are filed that will go before the planning commission. Those actions would be appealable to the city council. Also, as you know, the pending zoning text amendment is going to go before the city council. Your actions allow this station as well as one other station to be exempt. That was not unique. That was not a unique action relative to projects in the pipeline. It's actually really standard procedure with the city. So again, that would be an opportunity for people to make the position known before the city council. Next slide, please. So in conclusion, I'd like to say that we wish for you to deny the appeal and permit the filing of the certificate of compliance, which will allow us to continue the processing of the use permit and the design review in order for the project to be reviewed and analyzed on its own merits. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Polchak. Let's see, are there any questions for the applicants representative at this time? All right, seeing none. I think up next we have the appellant, Woody Hastings. Are you here? I am here. Can you hear me? Yes, you're coming through loud and clear. Pretty good. And is there a presentation as well? Yes, there is. Yeah. Mr. Hastings, if you would also, the presentation will be up in just one moment for you. If you would promise as you need us to go to the next screen, that would be wonderful. Thank you. We'll do. All right, good. All right, good evening. My name is Woody Hastings. I'm the co-coordinator of the Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations, or CONGAS. Thanks for the opportunity to present tonight. Since CONGAS is founding in 2019, we've played a role in halting three gas station proposals. That's because when examined, every gas station proposal since 2019 has been flawed and inadequate. This case is no different. Next slide, please. Our request is that you uphold the appeal of the Subdivision Committee December 2019 approval and deny the parcel map waiver and certificate of compliance. Per Santa Rosa City ordinance 1415, the Planning Commission's hands are not tied and has the authority to uphold the appeal. Next slide, please. These are photos we took of the site in question in January of 2020. This is an undisturbed location in Santa Rosa that is clearly a seasonal wetland that is certainly home to a variety of flora and fauna. Next slide, please. The grounds of the appeal are that the Subdivision Committee did not take into account significant material and policy changes that have occurred since the project was last before a decision-making body in 2013. Today's staff report says that staff is not aware of any significant changes. Well, a lot has changed since 2013 when the project originally received its CUP and mitigated NECDEC and in the design review of 2014. Our awareness of the urgency of the climate crisis in our dire situation with fires, floods, and drought has increased dramatically. Public policy has changed and we will provide relevant evidence of that. Next slide, please. So the 2013 mitigated NECDEC is outdated and obsolete. In January of 2018, California adopted updated comprehensive amendments to the CEQA guidelines, which include a suite of provisions improving the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions for projects like this. Current science, California State Policy and Santa Rosa's own policies call for rapid greenhouse gas reductions if we are to have any hope of safeguarding a livable global climate. Next slide, please. Members of Congress attended the December 12th, 2019 public hearing of the Sub-Division Committee. Staff was unprepared and there was inadequate space for those who attended. Staff never produced a record of the public comments at the meeting. What record that exists is what I recently provided to Mr. Wixen for the current report. Staff did not provide clear information and this is previous staff did not engage in a meaningful way nor address public comments. The staff simply stated the recommendation to approve and the vote was taken. Next slide, please. So no answers were given to questions about what criteria were used to decide whether to approve or even why the parcel map waiver was being requested. Only vague languages was used by staff such as that it was to quote, facilitate the proposed project in the process. Now we've come to understand that the applicant's purpose was to create a loophole to put a gas station near land zone for housing. That fact was not disclosed at the December 2019 meeting. So there was no discussion about that important issue when they were making their decision. Today's staff report does state clearly that quote, the subject site joins a vacant property to the east of his zone R318 multi-family residential. As such pursuant to the above noted zoning code section the proposed service service station would not be allowed on the subject site without approval of the subdivision. Next slide, please. So the applicant is requesting the parcel map waiver so that they can divide the property to create a paper buffer between the gas station and land zone for multi-family dwellings. Who tends to live in multi-family housing, lower and middle income people and people of color. This is one of the subtle institutional systemic injustices that take place in cities across the US. The subdivision committee did not give consideration to this significant issue. In this case, the very purpose of the waiver to enable a gas station to be within proximity to housing that otherwise would not be allowed. Next slide, please. So no one wants to live near a gas station. They are a public health threat. Since 2013, some relevant state regulations have changed such as the introduction of SB 445 in 2014 about requirements for double wall underground tanks. More is known about the environmental effects of the cumulative leaks and spills of gasoline and about the health impacts of exposure to gasoline fumes. The public should be able to access maps that clearly indicate where on a property the underground or aboveground hazardous fuel is stored and where pipelines and dispensers will be located. This project will be a burden on the taxpayers due to public health, environmental and eventual site cleanup costs. Next slide, please. So technical errors. The purpose of pointing out these errors is that if staff makes technical errors and material errors are of such magnitude, a lack of care is revealed. And since the subdivision committee is basing its decision on the staff report, their decision will be an error. The findings in the December 2019 subdivision committee report on page 12, bullet four, stated that a mitigated NEC-DEC had been approved in March, 2019. Given that there was no MMD approved in March, 2019, the December 2019 report was misleading. It was a significant and consequential error and sufficient for upholding the appeal. In addition, the December 2019 report finding states that the subcommittee determined no easements exist. However, elsewhere in that same report, there are references to easements as part of the conditions of approval. Today's staff report has several references to easements as conditions of approval. If easements do indeed exist, the 2019 subdivision committee decision does not stand. So I've found, next slide, please. So the subdivision mapback, in general, there's a lack of a justification for a parcel map waiver in this case. Parcel map waivers are only allowed under specific circumstances that relate to large parcel divisions. This is not a large parcel division. The subdivision mapback is clear that parcel maps have been required for developments like this since 1967. Next slide, please. So public noticing. The key point here about the public noticing is that there's no evidence that the neighbors or the owner of the adjacent multi-unit zoned property were notified. There's been a lack of transparent process overall. Staff hasn't been transparent with the community about the expiration dates of some of these documents. In December 2019, the report was not clear about the status of the conditional use permit and the design review regarding expiration dates. It would seem that the CUP from 2013, which was set to expire after two years, would have been invalid before December 2019. The current August 11th report is still not clear about exactly when the 2013 CUP and 2014 design review approval expired. Next slide, please. So the following few slides are a few views of a gas station in West County owned and operated by the applicant. These photos were taken in February of this year. We're including them to convey the reality of how the applicant maintains their current gas station. Your decision now is dependent on trusting the applicant to complete the requirements and meet a lot of high standards set forth in the conditional use permit and mitigated neck deck. It's up to you to do diligence to ensure the applicant is worthy of your trust that they'll do better than what they've shown in their capacity to be here. Here's how they're maintaining the decorative planners. The December 2019th approval included condition. Oh, I'm sorry, next slide, please. Next slide. Yeah, the decorative planners, December 2019 approval included condition of approval number 59 stating that all landscaping shall be privately maintained. Property owners shall be responsible for the maintenance of the planner strips along North Right Road and Joe Ridder to Trail is what you see in this picture, what you have in mind. Next slide, please. So this is just a side view of that same location. Next slide. And next slide, please. And so does the Planning Commission really want to be facilitating? That's a word used in the documents. Facilitating this is another gas station where 10 already operate within a five mile radius so desired to make exceptions, approval waivers and split parcels to make it possible to allow this use closer to housing. Next slide, please. The Subdivision Committee were provided incomplete and incorrect information by staff. Today with your full Planning Commission Decision Authority the error made in 2019 can be corrected. You are empowered to choose how you want to vote on this. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. And I'm not going to read through these. These are just some other compounding problems that are concerned to the community members. And many of these were raised in that December 2019 meeting so you can just move to the next slide. Compliance elements, the finding that the proposal is suitable for intensity of development in this area was based on the earlier design review that is no longer valid, evidenced by the fact that the applicant has filed new design review. The approval of the parcel map waiver and certificate of compliance were based on a conditional use permit and design review that now have been determined are expired and they need to refile, it was December 2021. Logically, if the CUP and design review were adequate and valid, there would have been no need for the December 2021 refilings. This is a de facto, this is a de facto admission that the documents upon which the approval was based were inadequate or invalid. Next slide, please. Once again, our request is that the commission uphold the appeal. I think that is my, yeah, next one more slide. Oh, yeah. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and we would be happy to respond to any questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Hastings. Does the commissioner have any questions for the appellants? Yes, commissioner Duggan. I actually have a question for staff that relates to something the appellant said. I think now. Hold on, hold on, I'm hitting the wrong buttons. Yeah, I have a question for staff. That is something that's based on something the appellant said. Is that okay? I think it's an appropriate time. We'll have, just to keep in mind for everybody listening and the commissioners, the applicant will have a few minutes to respond and then we'll open up the public hearing as well. So I think if it's a quick question, I think it might be worth asking while it's fresh. Yeah, it's just, I believe Mr. Hastings mentioned that in 2018, California adopted some CEQA requirements pertaining to greenhouse gases. And is that true? And would that render the mitigated NICDEC invalid or in need of revision? And I guess that's for Mr. Wixen or Ms. Crocker. Let me get back to, so to my understanding that, yeah, certainly back in Jessica might be there also or Ashley, but my understanding is in 2012, 13, there were new guidelines that were put into place but that those guidelines were, City was aware of those guidelines at the time. In my review of the initial study of mitigated negative declaration, the applicant had submitted the climate action plan checklist at the time that was in place and that has not changed much since then. And so based on that, it is demonstrating the compliance with what is the outworking of the greenhouse gas emission policy set in place by the state with the local climate action plan. And so if you're demonstrating compliance with that, it's demonstrating an essence, compliance with the larger policies put in place. And that's my understanding of what has happened over the years. And of course, today I believe there's even more stringent or different requirements that have been adopted by the state having to do with vehicle miles traveled. I know that that's been looked at by the applicant as well. And again, at this point, there's no evidence to suggest that the project would require further environmental review that we've seen. And I just might add on to that. Yes, there was some fairly comprehensive amendments to the CEQA guidelines, including the significance thresholds that we look at for projects to determine whether there's a significant environmental impact. And we have taken a look at this project and noted that nothing has changed in a way that would trigger additional CEQA review. And this touches on some of the comments that we received is that CEQA doesn't prescribe a certain period of time that the MND is valid. The previously approved MND can remain valid and there's no additional analysis required unless there's new information that reveals new or more significant impacts that were not previously analyzed. And just speaking directly to climate change, there is a whole line of published appellate decisions that specifically hold that climate change is not, quote, new information under CEQA triggering additional supplemental, the need for additional supplemental analysis. That a lot of the analysis had already been done, well, through air quality and other studies. And so there's a strong line of cases saying that doesn't trigger the need for new separate analysis. So there may have been these changes. There may have been these new CEQA guidelines, but that doesn't throw us out of the determination that we made under CEQA guidelines section 15162 that the mitigated negative declaration remains valid and no additional analysis is required. Thank you. So I would say unless there's any other quick questions, I'd send it back to the applicant to do a brief response to some of the issues that were raised, after which we'll open the public comments period. Thank you, thank you, Chair Peterson. Yes, just a lot was discovered by Ashley. So let me step through these. Wetland mitigation showed, they showed a picture of wetlands on the site. This property was extensively reviewed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Wetland mitigation was developed that was accepted. There is a wetland on this clearly a wetland on the site. The applicant in fact has paid for the wetland mitigation. So it was analyzed, it was mitigated, and it was accepted by the Army Corps of Engineers. The mitigation plan was accepted by the Army Corps of Engineers and the wetland credits were purchased and those credits were actually have in fact been paid for. The applicant wants to somehow indicate to you that this project is taking advantage of a loophole that we're placing a service station adjacent to a residential use. This is not the case. We are creating the parcels through the certificate of compliance process. There will be a parcel plan separating the service use from the residential use, which is required by your code. In addition, not only is there a parcel, but your code includes physical distances from a residential property line, even a property that it may be zone commercial but has a residence on it. It includes certain physical distances. This commercial property, which will have a service station on it, exceeds those distances. So there's no loophole in it when you're not placing the use any closer to a residential development than is dictated by code. In fact, it is exceeds those distances. In terms of easements, there will be easements created as a condition of the certificate of compliance. As indicated by Gabe Osborne, those easements will be done by description and recording. It's not that they need to be done ahead of time. And as indicated by staff, this project did include an analysis related to your climate action plan. That concludes my remarks. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for the applicants representative at this time? So let me take, before we open the public hearing, let me take the temperature. Should we take just a quick maybe five minute break before that? How's the commission and staff doing? Is that a yes? Okay. Let's take a quick five minutes before we open the public hearing. So I have eight, 11, if we want to come back around maybe eight, 16 or so. Will that work for staff? Thank you guys, Chair Peterson. We'll note that on the slide board. Great. Thank you. Thank you. All right, it looks like the commission's back. How's it going for staff? We are back as well. All right. With that, I'd like to call it back to order. And if staff is ready, I'd like to open up the public hearing. Perfect. The first speaker will be Jan Kondeman. Jan, you have been given permission to speak if you would please introduce yourself to the record. Yes, can you hear me? We can. Okay. Hi, my name's Jan Kademan and I live at 270 Jesse Street in Sevastopol. And I want to thank the planning commission for my opportunity to comment tonight. I have stuck this out because I am here in support of the appeal of this project. I am still concerned about the waiver because the large parcel to the east of this project is zoned to R318, which is multi-family residential. I'm concerned with the gas station being located near to a residential area and for the safety and environmental risks that that poses. I'm concerned about new gas stations in general. In 2019, Sonoma County declared a climate emergency and the gas stations and fossil fuel consumption is something that we should be moving away from rather than adding new ones. I drive the corridor all the time. There's another gas station right up the road. There are over 10 gas stations within a five mile radius of this project. And so the use for this project, even though you said that's not what we're addressing tonight does really concern me a lot. Some of the other errors or perhaps oversights that may have occurred over the course of this long project also still concern me. And that's why I support the appeal. I think that's mostly what I wanted to say. So I want to thank you for your time. Thank you. The next speaker will be Kate Steen. Steen, if you would go ahead and introduce yourself for the record, please. Hello, my name is Kate Steen. I'm a Santa Rosa resident and an environment health and safety professional. Gas stations are not allowed next to properties zone for housing because of the public health hazards they create. The property owner's purpose in requesting the subdivision of this parcel is to place a paper buffer between the proposed gas station and housing that could be developed on the neighboring property. My comments are drawn from the law review article governing the gasoline spigot which is cited in my written comments to the commission. Underground gas storage tanks at gas stations vent through 12 foot tall pipes to balance pressures. Gasoline vapors can be released through the vent pipes when gas is pumped into the tanks and when vapor expands or contracts due to temperature or barometric pressure changes. In other word, gasoline vapors are routinely released from gas stations by design under normal operations. Benzene typically constitutes one to 3% of the volume of gasoline. It is a carcinogen associated with lung cancer and many types of blood cancers. The World Health Organization maintains that there is no safe level of exposure to benzene. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health or NIOSH sets unsafe benzene exposure as anything above 0.1 parts per million. People living near gas stations can be exposed to elevated levels of benzene. In one study, benzene levels were found to be at unsafe levels 160 meters from a gas station and 10 times higher than the estimates used to derive safe setback distances from gas stations. Another study found benzene at the boundaries of service stations 1.4 times higher than NIOSH safe levels in summer and 4.6 times higher in winter with levels spiking as high as 54 times safe levels. Another study found that gas stations can create unsafe vapor levels up to 100 meters away. It recommended a minimum distance of 50 meters between gas stations and housings. So unsafe benzene levels have been found 160 meters away from a gas station and a scientific study recommended a 50 meter minimum distance between gas stations and housing. Using the map and the staff report, I calculate that the gas station will be about 40 meters from the property line of the residential zone property. The artificial creation of a small parcel between the gas station and the neighboring property will not protect future residents from gasoline vapors. I urge the commission to uphold the appeal. Thank you. Hello. We can hear you. Okay, thank you. This is Jenny Blaker. I'm the co-coordinator of the Coalition Opposing New Gas Stations and I submitted a letter yesterday and then an addendum afterwards as well. It seems to me that the purpose of the parcel map waiver and certificate of appliance is to circumvent normal zoning requirements. In order to allow a new gas station to be built in an area next to another area zoned for multi-family housing, what is there about this project that justifies this special treatment? Applications for a new CUP and design review were submitted in December, 2021, following the determination that the previous CUP and design review had expired. How was it determined that they had expired and what differences are there, if any, between the expired CUP and design review and the new ones? The staff report says that nothing changed between the 2013 approval of the CUP, MND and design review and the December 2019 meeting of the subdivision committee, but a lot of relevant changes occurred, including increasing awareness of the climate crisis and the response, including Santa Rosa's climate emergency resolution pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which was passed in January, 2020. Governor Newsom's executive order meaning that no new gas powered vehicles will be sold from 2035. Then in September, 2021, the regional climate protection authority agreed to support the cities in drawing up ordinances to prohibit new gas stations, and since then, the cities of Pethaluma, Sebastia, Paul, Roanoke Park and Katari have passed their own ordinances. Sure, a new ordinance in Santa Rosa wouldn't necessarily make any difference to this particular project, but this shows the direction everything is heading in. Supporting this project and making a special exemption for it is to prolong out-of-date infrastructure to support unsustainable lifetimes, lifestyles. The other thing is that there has been increasing research and understanding of the dangers to human health, especially children's health, and damage to soil and water from toxic emissions, leaking underground storage tanks, small leaks and spills, and gas emissions from gas stations. We should not be making special exceptions to the zoning laws, which is what this is about, to construct a new gas station next to an area zoned for multifamily housing, never because of the environmental justice issues and not now because of the climate crisis. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker will be Christine Hoax. Christine, you have been given permission to speak. If you would please introduce yourself for the record. Hello. And thank you for the opportunity. Christine, I apologize. You take out for one moment. Pardon? We will restart the time for you. Okay. Can you hear me now? We can. Great. Thank you. Okay. Hi. My name is Christine Hoax. I am with 350 Sonoma. And I am speaking in support of this appeal and I am in opposition to this project by all number CC18-004 for the record. So there's many things I could repeat. I'm going to try and focus on a few I think are important. They're all important. I support all of Mr. Hastings' presentation. We basically have no need for new gas stations. This has been clearly stated. But the main reason is because we have lots of them. And one more is only going to make things worse. As we've heard, they create pollution and land water and for people living near. So this is a big problem. The Planning Commission has the discretionary authority to deny this parcel map waiver and the certificate of compliance. And I ask you to do that because it's the right thing to do. I really want to call your attention to the staff report for the recent Planning Commission hearing on zoning amendments to ban new gas stations. Because it noted that 41 of the 44 gas stations within the city limits are in areas with the highest concentration of people of color and people living in poverty. This new gas station would be yet another gas station in an equity priority area, where this community is already bearing 93% of the pollution and health burden for the city of Santa Rosa and this gas station pollution. So once again, considering all of this and what everyone else has said in opposition to this project, please, I oppose this project and urge the Commission to support the appeal. Please, dude, thank you. Thank you. The next speaker will be Susan Lamont. Miss Lamont, if you would please introduce yourself for the record. My name is Susan Lamont, and I've lived in the city of Santa Rosa for 31 years. I want to start my remarks by reminding the Commission that in earlier subdivision committee meetings, information has not been made available and questions have gone unanswered. The California Constitution in Article 1 Section 3 requires, quote, a statute, court rule, or other authority shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right to access. End of quote. That includes the Brown Act, the municipalities and counties rarely act accordingly. I'm here to support the appeal by Woody Hastings points I'd like to emphasize. One, in a city and county afflicted by climate change driven drought and fire and the resulting loss of CO2 sequestering vegetation and tree canopy, it should be obvious to all that we want to reduce CO2 emissions, not increase them. This has become glaringly obvious since this gas station was first proposed years ago. The project hasn't changed, but the biosphere is changing and our habits need to change with it before it's too late. As things are going, life on this planet will end while governments, their departments, and commissions justify life-killing technicalities. There is no such thing as a gas station that does not have negative environmental impacts. That's a fairy tale. Two, this property is next to a parcel zone for multi-unit housing. The subdivision of this property is a cynical attempt to use a technicality to get around the principles behind the rules that aim to keep a gas station in its resulting contamination away from residences. The small distances required were undoubtedly created as the result of the demands of businesses, not residents. That's the common handshake between business and government. Three, this gas station would be located in an equity priority area. Almost all gas stations in the city are located in neighborhoods of color. They aren't in Fountain Grove. They aren't in Bennett Valley Heights. Once again, people of color in the poor would be bearing the negative health effects of an outdated and dangerous transportation system. Once again, life being harmed as the result of technicalities. I hope you will take these concerns seriously and vote against the interests of the haves and in favor of the have-nots and life on this planet. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker is Tom Amado and, I apologize, Chris Thompson. If you would please introduce yourself. You've been given permission to speak. Yes, hi, my name is Chris Thompson. Can you hear me? We can. Great, great. Well, good evening, commissioners. It's been a long day for everybody. Again, my name is Chris Thompson and I live out here at Oakmont and it's a retirement community on Highway 12. Today, we're here to continue the fight to save our planet from overheating. As we often hear about climate change, we already have a box full of tools to use for this fight. All that is needed is the political will to pick up a hammer. Here in Sonoma County, we have successfully utilized a powerful tool, the banning of new gas station construction. Let's not stall in our forward movement to eradicate fossil fuel use, but turn instead to a world built on clean energy infrastructure. Let's be ready to transition away from building for the past to building for the future. No new gas stations. I support the appeal. Thank you. I'm Tom Amato and I'm here with Chris as well. I also live in Oakmont. And you know, when this was a proposed back in 2017, maybe it made sense to us and maybe the proposal hasn't shifted that much, but what has shifted is what we know about our planet and the message it's giving to us. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay. So what has changed since this was put out there is our understanding of what's happening with the environment. Mother Nature is giving us a message that we are running out of time and that message gets stronger every year. When we moved here in 2017, we looked out on a beautiful forest hill and we didn't expect to have to be evacuated twice because of fires. And as I look out my window today, I see a charred hill. And what that has brought home to me is that our time is getting shorter and shorter. I salute this committee for your past willingness to look to the future for no gas stations but we need to look to now. And again, now we need no new gas stations. The message is clear from our planet. We need to speed this up. Building more fossil fuel infrastructure is in the wrong direction. Thank you for your consideration and approve the appeal. Bye. Thank you. The next person to speak is June. June, if you would please introduce yourself for the record. We can. Yes. Good evening. I am a member of the public hearing and I attended the December 12, 2019 public hearing and I support the appeal. The city representatives that convened that meeting, they did not enable the public to give meaningful input. And the decision makers there did not have accurate nor complete information for their decision. Questions we asked were not answered on key points. Such as the question, why the gas station project required the parcel and map waiver and certificate of compliance. Now we know the subdivision is to enable the gas station to be put next to an area zone for housing. But in December, 2019, that was not revealed. The subcommittee hearing did not have any consideration regarding it, more informed discussion on key points for their decision. It's relevant to what's changed since the project was last before the planning commission in 2013 and 2014. Since then, we know housing and the climate crisis have been elevated to huge concerns. The considerations for the right road, environmental considerations for the right road site have changed and the circumstances have changed. The 2017 fires deeply affected Santa Rosa. Santa Rosa suffered significant loss of housing stock and other impacts. The very issues that contributed to this project should not be delayed, should not be waived off. The fires and the economic challenges have impacted Santa Rosa and by necessity, Santa Rosa policy makers have shifted priorities to respond to the climate crisis and prioritize housing. Santa Rosa has issues with people lacking housing. We see that right in the area of the proposed project site near the Joe Rudota Trail. The priority need for housing is evident. We got plenty of gas stations. The planning commission knows well that we need housing and the difficulty of achieving it. A developer considering doing a multi-unit project to have this gas station go in so close that that's gonna be a negative consideration and we don't need that barrier to be created to potential housing. And there's also all the environmental justice aspects that have to be considered. And even if the gas station doesn't go in, the division will stand and open a path for other uses that currently are not allowed to be adjacent to the housing. The report itself contains wrong information that the findings and the findings were incorrect. Any independent judge is gonna be able to see it. It lists its findings on page 12 that the mitigated net debt being approved was approved in March, 2019, page 12. That misinformation may well have been a factor. It also the findings were based on an invalid CUP and invalid design review that had expired. Thank you, that's time. We have no additional hands raised at this time. Okay, with no other hands, let me close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Are there any commissioners with questions for staff, applicants, repellents? Yes, I see Commissioner O'Crepkey for staff. Is there any sort of entitlements for that residentially zoned property next door? Is there any tentative map or anything like that? Good evening, Commissioner O'Crepkey. This is Jessica Jones, deputy director of planning. At this time, no, we have had some conversations with property owners out in that area, but no applications for new entitlements have been submitted to date. Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Siscoe. Mr. Wixen, maybe you can clarify this. The prior tentative map that expired actually created this other parcel as well, right? I mean, there isn't a loophole or an end run around something that was required. The prior tentative map created a space, a large enough space from the anticipated housing. And this is just another process to get the same thing. Is that right? That is correct. Okay, I'm just concerned that there seems to be like it's some technicality that we're looking at here. And it's just a different process for the same result that had already been approved, which protects the residences from being too close to a gas station. Okay. So I've got a couple of questions for staff. So one of the issues that the public raised and the appellate raised was sort of the notice and the public noticing aspect of this. Can you tell me, you touched on it in the slide, but can you just kind of remind me the sort of the public noticing of a meeting versus the materials to be provided to the public at the meeting? Sure. I mean, generally speaking, the public noticing of a meeting makes people aware of the fact that the project is moving forward, where to access information, how to get it, who to call when the meeting is, et cetera. Then the, if a person's interested in it, they can come to the planning department. In the cases today, they're found online. You can access the information online. And that's how you would obtain the information if you wanted to pursue that further. In this specific case, the request for that information on the public hearing notice had to do with the applications that were processed back in 2013. So it wouldn't make sense that the public hearing notice information for the conditional use permit or the tentative map or the design review permit would be anywhere in the files that were there in front of the subdivision committee because they weren't considering those. It wasn't to be considered. It was part of what they were considering at the time was the parcel map waiver, which was a separate request. And again, I'll say that that information is available though. We have, we do have that, the old public hearing notices. So we can provide that if it's requested. This is maybe a minor clarification on that. So if I want to go to a subdivision committee meeting and I want to know what they're talking about and what info they're looking at, how would I go about that? Can I get that at the meeting? Is it available online? Well, it's available today. It's available online the way it works today. And you can also go to the planning department and obtain the information. And so the planning department has its hours of operation during the week. You can go there anytime and request the information on a project. Okay. And I do want to touch on this. It's kind of a hard to phrase question. So when the environmental justice issue comes up, I guess first of all, is this an equity priority area? Is this particular parcel? And if so, how does that interact with the planning commission and in particular a parcel map waiver and certificate of compliance? Yeah, I'm going to defer on this one. If I can't, I don't, if Jessica, I'm hoping Jessica is still there or Ashley. I am, Chair Peterson, if you wouldn't mind repeating that question. Sure. So a lot of the public comment raised the environmental justice aspect of land use and mentioned that equity priority areas in particular. So I guess the first question is, is this parcel in an equity priority area? If you know, and if so, how, if at all, does that affect planning? I mean, is it another finding we would need to make? Is it, does it start upstream from the planning commission? That's an excellent question. I don't know offhand, if it is in one of our equity priority areas. And I'm not sure if we have one of our planners from our advanced planning team that would be able to quickly answer that question, but certainly we could look that up and provide that information to the commission. So, yeah, it looks like we're getting some chatter here from the other plans. It looks like the answer is maybe. So again, we can look up that information and get back to the commission. And as far as, if it is an equity priority area, I don't believe that that has any difference in how we look at the environmental, but perhaps Assistant City Attorney Crocker could help with that as well. I also see Claire Hartman on who may be able to help out. There are no additional findings that would be required to be made for this project approval as a result of its location, if it is in the equity priority area. The findings before you are those that were referenced that are required by our code section 19-16030 for waiver of a personal map and then the tentative map findings. And I'm getting information that it's not an equity priority area. Maybe one of the planners wants to jump in trying to read it. And if I may, Chair Pearson, it's additional information that we are starting to provide when, you know, as it's new information that we've developed, we've mapped it, we're learning more about what it means and we're starting to apply that as just additional information, but to Ms. Crocker's point, we have not amended any of the findings for a lot of our planning entitlements such as this, but that's something that maybe the city might consider in the future. But this time we haven't amended the findings, but it's just additional information about the location. Thank you. Any other questions from the, yes, Commissioner Kripke? Yeah, I'm starting to have to ask this, but it was addressed like two hours ago and so I just want to get a refresher on this. Mr. Wixen, if you could just drill it down into layman's terms, I know there's a lot of options depending on what gets approved or how the appeal goes. Could you just kind of drill it down in layman's terms and like a short, like I'm a fifth grader, kind of an explanation? I'll give it a go. So all options are before you. You can approve, you can deny, you can modify the appeal. Those are all before you. What staff is recommending is, of course, the denial of the appeal. Right, but if there is, so if, but I guess what I'm saying is the ramifications of those, this wouldn't, if we uphold the appeal, it wouldn't stop the project flat, correct? Well, no, it wouldn't stop it flat, correct? If the appeal were upheld, if the appeal were denied, the public also has other opportunities for public comment at other public hearings regarding the project and regarding the draft ordinance to ban gas stations. And if I may just quickly clarify. So yeah, if the commission chose to deny the appeal and uphold the subdivision committee's approval, the applicant can then move forward with the conditionally used permit and designer view that they have submitted and is on file and deemed complete. As far as the gas station ban is concerned, as mentioned, the language currently in the draft ordinance going before the city council is that if the gas station is in and deemed complete by the effective date of that ordinance, then it would be exempt from the ordinance. So that's currently drafted. Of course, the commission or excuse me, the council could modify that. If the commission tonight denies or approves the appeal which would then deny the certificate of compliance and personal map waiver, then the applicant still has, as mentioned, the conditionally used permit and designer view. But in order to move forward with the project, they would need to submit a new tentative map for review. And that tentative map would need to be submitted and deemed complete by the time that of the effective date of that ordinance if the language stands in the draft ordinance. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Beggin. Yeah, I have one more question for option B which was modify the appeal and what does that mean? And I think that's the only thing we've not discussed because Mr. Wixen said we could approve, we could uphold, we could deny and we could modify the appeal. Yeah, technically, I don't have anything in my mind that would create a modification. I'm just saying that option's available if you had something. Yeah, I think probably really what's before the commission is the two options to deny the appeal or approve it. And just a quick, also a quick point of clarification on the information that we've provided. One thing to note, if the commission, one thing to note, if the commission is not available for you tonight, we would need to continue the item. You also need to identify the findings in which the commission is making to deny the partial math waiver. And yeah, so basically we need findings for denial with a direction to prepare such a resolution, if that makes sense. Thank you. Just like Commissioner Okreppke, it's been a lot of information thrown at us. The specific decision that the subdivision committee made was to subdivide a property, correct? Correct. And that property, for the sake of argument, could be used for anything, assuming those two parcels meet the other requirements, correct? Yes, it would be able to utilize whatever was allowed within the zoning district for that parcel, correct? OK. So again, just we're dealing with a parcel map waiver that subdivided a property. We're not dealing with anything else. I mean, we've heard some very eloquent speeches about this, but I just want to focus in on what is in front of the Planning Commission, just for my own sake. OK. Thank you. Anything else from the commission? Any questions before I ask for someone to move the resolution? All right, Swahl, is there anyone who would like to move the resolution in front of the commission for discussion? Yes, Commissioner Siscoe. Yeah, I'll go ahead and move a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa in making findings and determinations denying the appeal and upholding the subdivision committee's approval of the Elm Tree Station parcel map waiver and certificate of compliance located at 874 North Bright Road, APN 035-063-001, file number CC18-004 and waive for the reading of the text. Thank you. And is there a second? Yes, I see you, Commissioner Carter. All right, so with that, I'd like to open it up for discussion with the reminder, well put, my staff, that they need a specific finding if you feel that the appeal should be upheld. So with that in mind, I'd like to go in alphabetical order, starting with Commissioner Carter. Well, we have indeed heard a lot of information tonight, and I appreciate the vice chair's direction in pointing out that what's really before us is an appeal of a procedure that the subdivision committee used and whether or not that procedure was appropriate given the city's codes and guidelines. I have not seen anything in the discussion that shows me that the process used by the subdivision committee was out of line with what the city does in dividing land. And for that reason, I think that the subdivision, the parcel waiver and the certificate of compliance appear to be appropriately constructed and approved through the city process. And that is the essential question before us. So I'm inclined to deny the appeal based on that fairly tight window of what we're considering here. I certainly appreciate the facts and information that was brought to us by the appellant and members of the public. I hope that kind of passion for social justice issues remains in this community and not just when it comes to gas stations. That's all I have for you. Thank you. I will turn to Commissioner Siscoe. Yeah, I would echo what Commissioner Carter said that our job tonight is not to be approving or disproving the gas station itself or that project. It's simply to look at the procedure that the subdivision committee took up for the parcel map waiver and the certificate of compliance. And on that basis, I agree with Commissioner Carter. I think that I can't find anything that was done inappropriately or that I would be leaning towards making a finding to uphold the appeal. So I will be joining Commissioner Carter and denying the appeal. Thank you, Mr. Duggan. Okay, so as one of the two commissioners who's seen this project twice so far and in all openness, I'm the only person who voted this down last time when it passed in 2013. I'm still opposed to the project, but at the same time I can find with Commissioner and Siscoe that the subdivision committee did their work appropriately. They followed the guidelines of the city. So I'm inclined to deny the appeal, but I think all the information that was shared tonight is totally appropriate and correct. And I admire the passion of the speakers and I personally would love to ban gas stations and I wish them well in the future. But I know that this, I think this is not the appropriate time to weigh in on this particular one or other future ones, but I will vote to deny the appeal. Thank you, and Commissioner O'Cripkey. Yeah, I agree with my fellow commissioners that I've already spoke before. And with a narrow window of what we're hearing in this appeal, I can't make any findings to back up a upholding the appeal based on the subdivision committee's process and decision. We say this every now and then on the more passionate issues that come before us, but our body is not a policy-making body. We have a very tight window of what we're allowed to do in terms of latitude and making our decisions. And we don't get any input in policy with the exception of making recommendations to council like last meeting on this ban, on the gas station ban. And so I just think it's important to remind those that are watching that this same body, a month ago, recommended a gas station ban to go forward to council in that very limited window that we have to give our own policy insight and opinion. So, but that being said, I will be voting to decline the appeal. Thank you. And I think we heard a lot of reasons why this putting a gas station in this location is a bad idea. I think the appellants arguments are persuasive on that issue, absolutely. Again, on the specific issue of subdividing this parcel, looking at the technical errors that were in the documents that the staff prepared, the issue with the high fire, the MND, I don't find that particular part of it persuasive to the level that would allow me to uphold the appeal. Like my fellow commissioners, I don't think it's easy to say, yes, we know that this may be the first step in a process of a gas station going in, but there are other steps. There's the conditional use permit, there's the tentative map, the environmental justice concerns, the venting of benzene to me, all excellent points that are just not at this stage. So with that, I can't make the findings to uphold the appeal again on this very specific narrow issue of the decision made by the subdivision committee. So if there's no other comments, I'd like to turn it over to staff for a roll call vote. The motion was moved by Commissioner Sisko and seconded by Commissioner Carter. Commissioner Carter? I think this is a no, right? Yes, that's correct. The motion on the table was to deny any appeal and uphold the subdivision committee. Thank you, Ashley. Aye. The supportive of that would be yes. Thank you. All right, and Commissioner Sisko? I am an aye as well. Commissioner Dugan? Right before my battery dies, I'll say aye. Commissioner Krupke? Aye. And Vice Chair Peterson? Aye. And so the motion passes five ayes, two abstentions with Chair Weeks and Commissioner Holton not present. With that, I believe this adjourns the meeting. I do wanna thank the public for sticking it out. Again, it's not an easy decision. And thank you to staff and my fellow commissioners as well. Good job today, Vice Chair. Thank you.